The Dark Side of Theological Contextualization
A recent hot topic[s] here at BT has been the issue[s] surrounding Tim Keller and his supposed “gospel for the uncircumcised,” an example of gospel “contextualization.” Contextualization is the term that describes the process between the exegesis of Scripture and the delivery of its meaning to a receptor culture (i.e. another context). Grant R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), Professor of NT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School defines contextualization as “that dynamic process which interprets the significance of a religion or cultural norm for a group with a different (or developed) cultural heritage” (The Hermeneutical Spiral, pg. 318). Much of the novel fascination we see with contextualization has to do with the recent theories put forth and presented by missiologists. But as Osborne points out “it is important to note that what they call ‘contextualization’ is identical to what homileticians call ‘application’” (Ibid. pg. 318).
In one of the threads I pointed out some of the blasphemous theology in Africa that developed from radical nonevangelical hermeneutics in attempts to contextualize, and to my surprise, many in our own BT community were shocked and horrified! Friends, this has been going on for quite some time now – at least a quarter-century, maybe longer. These African examples should awaken us to the severe implications of when the transcendent, supracultural nature of biblical truth is replaced by the primacy of current cultural context. In my estimation, Tim Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” commits a similar exchange, resulting in syncretistic contextualization that sells the gospel short – only to a less realized degree. Again, for the record, I am not opposed to contextualization. In fact, I am doing it here, and I can’t remember a time when I didn’t ever do it. The degree that our contextualization retains and preserves biblical truth should be the degree that it is praised and encouraged. And the degree to which it compromises biblical truth should be rejected. I’ll put it more forceful and say that it must be rejected.
I plan, and if God wills, to publish (post on BT) some work I’ve done in this field. But today, I want to serve you by discussing some of these African theologies. As we look at these examples, keep in mind that their concepts and syncretism are really no more blasphemous, idolatrous, and demonic than what we see here in America on TV, in our churches, in our homes, and for some (if not most), in ourselves! If you are shocked at how far wrong they’ve gone, then take an introspective perspective and by God’s grace he’ll loosen and unfetter you, and if He wills, release you from your slavery to your apathy.
First, you may recall some of the controversy surrounding Bible translations such as the NIV et al. One issue was with “dynamic equivalency.” This term refers to the translator’s task of translating thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word or literal (formal equivalency). A good example is given by James R. White (Alpha and Omega Ministries) when he points out that “[T]he French have a saying that goes ‘j’ ai le carfard.” The most literal translation would be, ‘I have the cockroach.’” (The King James Only Controversy, pg. 23) White goes on to say that “[s]pecifically, this saying means ‘I am depressed’ or ‘I have the blues.’” In short, a dynamic equivalence translation (or contextualization) is needed in this case in order to preserve the meaning (I’m depressed – not I have an insect) from French to English. He also provides another example from the German language, but you will need to buy the book yourself for that! Of course, he was addressing issues in Bible (language) translations, and we are not. But this, I think, is relevant because the theoretical concept of dynamic equivalency is not limited to use in language barriers, but is applied in modern efforts to contextualize the Christian faith, namely, the gospel.
“The recent missiological debate centers upon ‘dynamic equivalence’ contextualization, which attempts to make the gospel and Christian theology meaningful and relevant in the diverse cultures of our modern world. Many approaches to contextualization have centered upon the contemporary context rather than the ancient text as the generating force” (Osborne, pg. 321)
Charles Kraft, taking a similar approach to Charles R. Taber, says the Bible centers upon the subjective pole of communication (divine-human interactions) more than upon the objective pole of propositional dogma (Christianity in Culture, see chapter ten). Kraft’s entire theoretical superstructure is erected upon this foundation (chaps. thirteen to seventeen). I agree closely with Kraft in that contemporary translations (of Scripture and theology) must achieve the same impact upon the receptor culture as was felt by the original readers, but I side closer with Osborne in that Kraft’s application of dynamic equivalence to the task of communicating theology needs to be considerably sharpened. Osborne notes that “[t]here is too little of the text left when Kraft finishes, too little that is supracultural. The Bible as he sees it is too culture bound, with too little theological truth that carries over” (Osborne, pg. 322). In a sense, this is how i view Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised.” (not his overall ministry)
I appreciate Grant Osborne’s boldness in stating that Charles Kraft and other dynamic equivalence contextualizers need a deeper appreciation of the dangers of relativism. Osborne continues to critique relativistic nonevangelical contextualizers such as James Barr who argued that “the Bible is a relativistic book that was written to a radically different culture with a message that cannot possibly be authoritative for the modern person because it is couched in terms that no longer relate to current problems and perspectives (1973:42-23)” (Ibid. pg. 323). Barr’s view represents a decline in the sliding scale of relativism, much more than Kraft, but there is far greater danger ahead.
This brief groundwork was simply to establish the need for concern and return to evangelical hermeneutics. As we’ve seen, relativism and syncretism are firmly in control of nonevangelical contextualization. Osborne says, “Without controls that center upon the meaning of the text, one will contextualize to a religious expression that is no longer Christian…When cultural norms have ascendancy over the text itself, there is no longer theology but only a human-centered anthropology.” Again, much of my critique of Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” can be better understood in terms of these severe statements by our top scholars (Carl F. Henry, D.A. Carson, John Frame, Vanhoozer, John Woodbridge, Moises Silva, Doug Moo, Blomberg, France, Dunbar, Wells, et al.) that all seem to be saying much of the same.
Now to Africa. According to Grant LeMarquand (Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada), “In contrast to most Western exegesis we find that most African exegesis focuses on the community receiving the text rather that the community which produced the text.” Immediately we can see how the intended meaning of the authors of Scripture can be so radically obscured to the point where almost any idea can develop and still be called biblical or Christian. Since exegesis of this fashion is only limited by the receptor audience, then it should be no surprise to extrapolate theology through this filter and have as a final product a theology to fit the receptor culture.
Gabriel Setiloane is a good example of a nonevangelical contextualized theology, or as it is called, a “purely African theology.” Setiloane’s view is that African theology should center upon African spiritual concepts and divinity rather than Western religious images. Osborne notes that in Setiloane’s theology, “the individual is presented as a ‘participant in divinity’ (a contextualization building upon animism), and the Christ-myth is expressed via the African Bongaka, or ‘witch doctor,’ who is possessed by divinity.” In researching this myself, I found that Osborne may have made a mistake in equating “Bongaka” with “witch doctor.” It appears that the witch doctor is the “dingaka,” a role in which “Bangaka” is the practice or craft.
According to Gomang Seratwa Ntloedibe-Kuswani’s essay “Bongaka, Women and Witchcraft,” ”The arrival of the Europeans and the introduction of their concepts and world-view over Batswana have resulted in the attempt to equate dingaka (plural) to Western trained doctors. It is doubtful if the concepts of the ngaka (diviner-healer) and the Western doctor are equivalent. If these concepts are not equivalent, then injustice might have been done to either or both.” Ntloedibe-Kuswani has made a distinction between two classes of witch doctors (there are more now), a distinction perhaps the European missionaries didn’t understand. The point is that although one class of witch doctor functioned in African communities similar to the way Western trained doctors functioned, the overlooked class – the divine class – cannot be considered equal to a western “physician.” In order to see the full picture we need to follow the distinction and briefly discuss the concept of ngaka. In case you’re wondering where this is going, ngaka is the concept that Jesus the Christ is interpreted through in some African theologies (in America it’s Kierkegaard and other philosophers).
The best way to describe this gap between the Western doctor and the concept of ngaka is the divination aspect of the ngaka’s work. “The distinctive characteristic of the ngaka with power is that he/she is a diviner [Krige and Krige, 1943].” Ntloedibe-Kuswani says, “Batswana see a ‘diviner-healer’ as peculiar in the sense that ‘ga a botse o a bolela’ (he/she does not ask for the problem but he/she tells what the problem is), the source of his/her healing is divine, and that there is faith in his/her work. To quote one of my informants ‘Ngaka ya Setswana e dira ka tumelo’, meaning ‘a Motswana healer works by faith’. It is the divination exercise that creates a gap between the ngaka and a Western doctor. The ngaka’s function is not only healing in the sense of physical illness but also in the sense of spiritual illness. Attending physical symptoms and causes does not complete the mission of the ngaka. Divination is an act in which people are moved by what they feel and believe to be their experience of the sacred or the transcendental power [Werbner, 1989]. It is the divination dimension that brings the ordinary/the profane – the person of the ngaka - into contact with the sacred. Then the ngaka becomes an object or a hierophany serving as a medium of the sacred power.”
It is obvious from a Biblical Christian perspective that the concept and power of ngaka is demonic. Nothing but raw occultism is on display, and this cultural phenomenon cannot in any way re-express the normative biblical content in dogmatic symbols that communicate biblical truths to their own culture. The only useful aspect of this deep-rooted ancestral connection to the spiritual realm through the ngaka is to use it as an example of idolatry and darkness – a repentance item. A friend of mine that went to Africa and interviewed an African Christian pastor told me that the pastor grieved over the situation and summed the whole thing up by saying that step one is for Africans to admit that their ancestors were wrong.
Hopefully, if God wills, we can have my friend contribute some of his thoughts to this discussion. In the mean time, look around and start counting how many American cultural corruptions are fattening America’s idolatrous and syncretistic religion, getting her ready for the slaughter. All those things are going to burn when tested by Fire. But praise be to the true God of the Bible for leaving us with His promise that His people both individually, and His people corporately, shall be preserved by Him according to whose purposes we have been chosen!
More to come later, God willing. I just got inspired this afternoon when I got home and read this.
49 Comments, Comment or Ping
Fusion!
Great work Stephen. I might add, I had to read Kraft’s work for an anthropology class. he has some good stuff on world-niew but he believes there is no one Christian world-view. He’s very subjective in that sense. It should also be said he’s a big practisioner of new agey deliverance models. I’ve seen him in action. It’s “interesting”. So, as a quick note, dynamic equivalance: yay or nay?
Jul 16th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Fusion!,
I say yay, if it retains/preserves meaning. “Let not your heart be troubled” to African’s only puzzles them, but say “let not your liver shiver” and you’ve just communicated…
Jul 16th, 2008
Glen
Stephen,
I agree with Fusion, great work. There is no way for us to avoid contextualization unless we speek Greek and Hebrew and can transport ourselves back to the culture when the Bible was written. The important thing is to make the Scipture understandable to your audience without change it. I really like your example of how the missionaries in Africa have misused contextulization and it is very sad that they “preach” in the name of “Jesus” when they should be preaching the one true Gospel.
Jul 16th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Thanks Glen,
My fear was that the article would be too heady and thus innefective. I am rejoicing that God has blessed the labor I’ve put in (based on the couple responses so far).
We’ll see…
Jul 16th, 2008
Glen
It was long, but worth the read. Contextualization could be one of the battle grounds in the future of the Church in America. We live in a society that tries to contextualize everything and preaches tolerance. We as Christians need to take a stand and say “This is what the Bible says whether you like it or not.” Those who change the Gospel and water it down through impropper use of contextualization need to read Gal 1.
Jul 16th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen~
Excellent work, my friend.
The Christianity Today article is interesting…shock left me long ago regarding what “God’s people” will do in the name of following Him. The African example (with the severed head) is gross, but in America alone hundreds of thousands of Eastern Apostates regularly bow down to icons, coo over “incorrupt” relics (bones/personal items believed to have belonged to “saints”) and have special prayers and feasts to celebrate the finding of lost body parts…sometimes three times a year for the same body part (ie John the Baptist)! They don’t even try to say these practices are in the Bible but just got lost in translation…they just plain do what they desire!!
Want a live example? Look at Todd Bentley…he doesn’t wait for dead stuff…he kicks the live (and sick) in the head and stomach with his biker boot! After all the Holy Spirit moved him to do so…disgusting.
We don’t even have to go to Africa…sadly we have “blasphemous theology” all around us.
“In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will”. Rom 8:26-27
Messiah has provided everything we need…even praying/interceeding for us since we don’t even get that right…it’s all of grace!!
Jul 16th, 2008
prop
I just came back from Cameroon Africa, which is on of the major warfronts of this issue. its really heartbreaking because, after all, the populous HONESTLY does not know better. People with sound doctrine HAVE to find their way out there. its over-ran by name it and claim it Contextualizing knuckle-heads!
Anyway, on that trip we met this amazing man Dr Boa, who mind you is not at all clergy, just a dude in his 60s that loves God. We sat down with him for about a half hour and just kinda picked his brain. he said some VERY SURPRISING THINGS:
we asked him what he thought was the problem with not just the church in africa but the continent as a whole. Its the most resource rich land on the face of the earth! Why cant yal get it together? he says AND I QUOTE!
“the problem is, we need admit once and for all our ancestors were WRONG. we need turn completely away from those practices and follow scripture. not the west but scripture.”
yes. he said “our ancestors were wrong” Contextualization? Even they know its wrong
Jul 16th, 2008
Travis
Is the Afican book drive still going on? It sounds like Africa needs it (not that America doesnt) GREAT POST im shareing it with my church. And talking to them about sending some money for books.
Jul 16th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
The FD online store is down right now, but I think books are still being sent to Africa for a one dollar donation. I’ll update this later.
Prop,
Thanks for stopping by! My bad, Dr. Boa is not a pastor.
Reformed Mama,
Always a pleasure to hear you chime in, especially when your humor bursts through the text (Bentley – dead people – no waiting around for the to die – just kicks them while alive)!
Glen,
As I have done so in the past many times here on BT, I apologize again for the long post. But I haven’t grown into that person that can summarize so succinctly like Dr. Morey (whom D.A. Carson regards as a “Master Contextualizer!).
So, hang in there with me and my long posts – I’ll try to make it worth the read to the glory of God.
Jul 16th, 2008
Fusion!
Worry not Stephen. As part of my research for my book project, it’s becoming obvious that people don’t want to read a lot on-line anymore. We’re becoming lazy. Perhaps you’re doing us all a favor. Check out my blog for what I’m talking about.
Jul 16th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Fusion,
Which ministry has asked you to do this?
It looks like a fun project (minus the computers), similar to my own projects. A funny thing though, we have zero bibliographic overlap (authors maybe, not titles).
I’m anxious to see your Schaefferian approach (remember the watershed). Or did you mean wardrobe? (Frank in knickers!)
Jul 16th, 2008
Denise
What comes to mind:
Isa 40:18 To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?
Isa 40:25 To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Isa 46:5 “To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?
Jul 20th, 2008
Denise
One thing I recently heard by a pastor, was that when we proclaim THE Gospel, it should be FOREIGN to the ears of the dead (this is my paraphrase).
We aren’t to sully the Gospel of Christ Jesus with the abomination of idols, after all, God says there is nothing in common between Belial and Christ.
The Gospel is unique. If we stay faithful with the transcendant message of Scripture, which crosses (doesn’t take into consideration) all cultural norms, languages, tribes, etc.,leaving it up to the Master to use His Word to accomplish His will, we will be faithful. We can’t make it relevant. It already IS in and of itself. Acts is an excellent place to see this in action as God builds His churches across the world.
One other thing that comes to my mind that was also pointed out to me…Peter says this:
Act 2:40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
Many popular teachers and “churches” want to be relevant and accepted by this generation, but Scripture says not only are we NOT to be so, we are to see it as wicked, crooked, and God-hating. We are not to be like the world, we are to be like Christ.
John the Baptist not only didn’t contexualize the message of Jesus; he was totally SO not hip or “relevant” to his generation or culture (eating locusts and wearthing camel’s hair was not the lastest fashion). But Jesus said there was no one his equal of all the prophets. He honored Christ the Master faithfully and preached Truth from Scripture. =)
Jul 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Denise,
You’ve made some excellent points. I’m reminded of something I wrote but never posted on the theology of missionary David Brainerd. I’ll look it up and post it, but it basically described his apparent lack of success in evangelizing Native Americans because he wasn’t seeing changed lives – something brought about by the Holy Spirit.
It also looks at what he considered true success when true conversions took place. In both cases he preached the same gospel the same way and trusted in the sovereignty of God in salvation as described in the Bible. The only difference was sometimes he used a translator (with little success) and other times (having learned the tongues) in their dialect.
Brainerd could have reshaped the gospel into something the Indians were more willing to accept, but he didn’t, because he was a Calvinist.
Jul 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
Good posting. However, I would concur a text in line with Alford’s approach, that being a critical commentary on the critical text of Scripture. This concept goes beyond hermenutics and enters into the basic relms of textual criticism.
I would propose the most literal meaning of the text be that what it is (Word by Word exactly). Cultural idioms or figures of speech could be defined in the footnotes along with textual variations based upon (not solely the oldest – Westcott and Hort) but an ecletic approach to determine the meaning in the original autographs. This is done via the eclectic approach via the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
We must also argue over the “text” itself and the meaning of the concept “text.” This is another posting subject however.
Let the Scripture speak for itself for the believer to chew on. Anything other then a word for word translation is nothing more then a modern targum on the New Testament which is equal to Scotty’s dung.
Jean Chauvin
Jul 31st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean Cauvin,
Long time no nada. I wasn’t aware of your profound sense of humor. But your Bishon Frise reference is an excellent example of dynamic equivalence contextualization in order to communicate with a particular receptor audience. No one on earth will ever understand your comment unless those “for whom the comment was intended” interprets and re-contextualizes it, proving in the mean time via subcontextual-parallelism that it is sometimes impossible for word-for-word translations to carry, preserve, and communicate the original authorial intent of the text.
Your point (that **only** people familiar with Dr. Morey, his ministry [primarily via audio prods], his friends, etc., would know the name of his dog) was cleverly positioned at the end of your comment subversively refuting your own argument for literal translations over and against DEC (dyn. equ. cntxt.) in order to demonstrate the absurdity of a statement that at the time sounded reasonable! Whew!
I had no idea you had this kind of genius!
Jul 31st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
Good stuff. However, you are making a categorical fallacy in equating our blog conversation with the imperative ethics of Bible translation.
The Holy Spirit has a way in working with His elect. It is not up to us to act on behalf of the Holy Spirit in altering the text to what we think the idiom could have meant. Especially since there is some debate on the meanings of some of the idioms.
Your arguement is “somewhat” liberal. If you want to see an example of what the dynamic-equivalence method can do I would encourage you to read Acts 2:38 in the pre first edition of the NIV. You will find heresy in a non-idomatic clause.
Most conservative scholars would agree with me on this. I would also bet money that Morey would also advocate the most literal translation since he uses (or use to) the NASB (maybe NKJV now but I doubt it). He also respects Alford very highly. For him to shift his thinking on translation ethics would truly be a depressing shock.
Have the text speak the way it is intended via the original authors in their writing of the original autographs. If confusion is a concern simply note the possible meanings of the idiom or figure of speech in a footnote, but leave the text alone. Anything else is by definition NOT a TRANSATION but is by definition a paraphrase (or partial paraphrase).
James White’s translation ethics is wrong if what you have said about him is based upon reality. Alford was right (though his is in Greek).
If you could make a post on translation ethics I would gladly elaborate on some more details and include some more examples among some of those weaker “”"”translations.”"”"
Jean Cauvin (Ecc 1:18)
Jul 31st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Jean,
I think we’re talking past each other because you are talking about Bible translation and I am talking about theological contextualization. Both use dynamic equivalence, and that is why I flew in White’s example as a positive demonstration of dynamic equivalence, but continued saying:
“Of course, he was addressing issues in Bible (language) translations, and we are not. But this, I think, is relevant because the theoretical concept of dynamic equivalency is not limited to use in language barriers, but is applied in modern efforts to contextualize the Christian faith, namely, the gospel.”
I went on to show examples of contextualized theology based on nonevangelical hermeneutics. That’s what the post is about.
With translation ethics, a 100% literal interpretation is not possible. Dynamic equivalence is essential. Translators have to make decisions, and sometimes two equally competent scholars choose differently. What then? Which one is right?
If a Greek word or phrase has multiple options in the English language, which English word do you use?
If a Greek verb is a participle in the present, which English word[s] do you use? You cannot always use one word-for-word, many times a phrase must be used to correctly translate the one word. i have some examples of this if you would like more, but I doubt you disagree here.
If the translation ethic is dynamic equivalence and not formal equivalence, then obviously that is wrong. So I do not disagree with you at all there.
But White affirms the need for dynamic equivalence because he understands the complexity of translating koine Greek into modern English. If you disagree here, then I would like to give you a simple assignment that should only take 15-20 minutes of your time.
It would be to translate a portion of Scripture (I decide which one since I am aware of the problems) without *any* dynamic equivalence. The translation must retain, preserve, and communicate the authorial intent and must not be wanting upon exegetical verification. If you feel like you’re being set up, then you may already be familiar with these exercises and aware that without a dynamic equivalence method applied to the translation of some portions of Scripture, an understandable translation is not possible.
Let me know if you are up to the task and I will post the Greek only and give you as much time as you need. It’s not a challenge, just an exercise.
It’s late here on the West Coast so I’ll look for your response tomorrow (or later today). And thanks for calling me “somewhat” of a liberal. It’s about time someone figured me out!
Aug 1st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
The concept behind dynamic equivalence is usually in reference to translation as you posted an example referencing the NIV. However, the NIV is a foolish translation because they use the dynamic equivalence more then a fat man in a restroom upon the consumption of a prune juice indulgence becomes releaved.
When this type of translation occurs, it is very easy and happens often where the “translaters” take subjective liberties where they should not. An example is Galatians 2:16. Though this is not a D.Eq, it shows what happens when one doesn’t stick to the text. You will see the genitive being used as a reference of address instead of a possessive (which it should be). We are not justifed “”IN”" Christ, we are justifed “”"OF”"” Christ. A huge theological difference.
If you want to give me a verse that’s fine. Like I said before, I would translate it as literal as possible. If idioms are a factor I would note them in a footnote. If two meanings are a possible rendering I would render them both and let the reader decide. Christians today are stupid because their fed subjective analysis way more then literal rendering.
The reformers tried to render the text as exact as possible. And they were right. There is NO place for dynamic Eq, (accept maybe in a footnote).
Regarding pregnant words. I believe only a Christian in fellowship with the Father has the ability to translate a MSS or a Bible via a given text. Thus via the Holy Spirit and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, the child of God will know the correct rendering via context, their skill in that given field, and the Holy Spirit revealing to them the correct rendering. This would also follow accountability from other mature Christians in the same field. This is subjectivity following objectivity.
If you want to give me a verse in one of the Thessalonians letters or Romans I’d be glad to translate that for you. I’m currently working on those two sources. Or you can give me any other verse if my point is not coming across clearly.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 2nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
When I spoke of pregnant terms I meant variations of the text. This should be concerning to most Chrisitans since the Greek N.T. that is commonly used was compiled by pagans (non-Christians). This includes the Kurt Aland text and the USB text. These are the most used. Many of these men deny the inerrancy of Scripture (e.g Metzger). Though I also use these texts, I believe this area of study is the most neglected in theological Christian studies. Most Bible colleges have very little if any course at all on this subject.
The Majority text is actually one of the better texts in terms of objective translation. Erasmus had an okay text (though limited). Tischendorf’s Greek N.T. (8th revision) is also good (extremely excellent – though his theory was based upon the theory being the older the better) Though it too is not perfect. Dr. Clark confirms the high standard of the Majority text in his preface of his commentary of Thessalonians, and he’s right.
We need Biblical (Protestant) Christians trained in textual criticism and mature in the faith to provide a faithful text. This is hard work and will take a life time but it is desperately needed. It will require a team of scholars to complete the task. Dynamic Eq cheapens and weakens this pursuit of a pure text and the translation thereof.
Ruebon Swanson has done a little of this. But only regarding Codex Vaticanus. He too is ecletic (for the most part) and has created a fine work. But more is needed in relation to ALL the textual families.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 2nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
The End!??
There is no place for dynamic equivalence in a Biblical Worldview.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 6th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
Sorry. I’ve been preoccupied the past few days battling an illness. No, it’s not the end.
Perhaps you don’t realize this, but you require the use of dynamic equivalency in order to translate your idea that “[t]here is no place for dynamic equivalence in a Biblical Worldview.”
Unless you are prepared to put yourself forth as the sole authority behind this statement, you must admit that such a moral statement as this finds its origin elsewhere. You, as the interpreter of this moral, must contextualize it to us so that we too can understand it, and it must be done so via dynamic equivalence as you have just done so nicely.
If, to escape this circularity, you do in fact put yourself forth as the sole authority, then the Christians in the room will just laugh at a feeble attempt at legalism, iow, the attempt to bind our consciences to an autonomous law thought up by you.
But if you then try to escape the charge of legalism and instead claim that your idea is founded upon Scripture, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to restate your point, only this time, without the use of a dynamic method.
One more thing, we may not end up agreeing here on the issue of translation ethics, but what is your opinion of my piece *as it relates to theological contextualization?* Obviously, or at least, hopefully, you agree that dynamic equivalency in homiletics is essential, right? If not, why not. And if so, how do you hermeneutically decipher evangelical contextualization?
I remember that you are an ultra-dispensationalist, but these examples from Africa must shed light on contemporary issues, even from your perspective. I’d like to hear you chime in on this, some day, when you have time.
Aug 6th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
As for your translation, here’s one from Romans. It’s 6:2 from the NA27
mh. ge,noitoÅ oi[tinej avpeqa,nomen th/| a`marti,a|( pw/j e;ti zh,somen evn auvth/|È
If the characters don’t transpose, use your own (but name the text if not NA27).
Aug 6th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I see it didn’t work.
Aug 6th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello Stephen,
I hope you are feeling better from your illness. Perhaps some echinasia might speed along your healing.
When I spoke of dynamic equivalence having no place in the Christian Worldview I was refering to Translation Ethics. Dynamic equivalence is referred to the Holy Writ (e.g. translation). It is not generally used for homiletics.
However, since Ephesians 4:11 denotes a proper dichotomy between the teacher and the preacher I would denote it useful for the preacher (and even the teacher). But I do not call the spoken teaching lessons and Dynamic Equivalence in the same boat. However, there’s nothing wrong in elaborating about the literal point in language people of today can understand, that’s fine. The person is there to explain the differences. If you want to call that D.E., that’s find, it’s just another term among many describing connotatively the same concept.
However, the reason why you are shooting adhominems and categorical fallacies at me is because you lack experience in textual criticism. My question to you is why would you want to “warp” the literal text via it’s original transliteration? Is it to dumb down the text because most CHristians are stupid? Would you do this if it was the Reformation? I It’s like the political liberals thinking everybody is stupid so they must decide for them.
The Word of God is alive! By manipulating the text you are treating the Body of Christ as Stupid Idiots and eliminating a means of personal growth. You are also cutting the Holy Spirit’s throat via the text.
My eschatological theology is not a factor regarding this issue. The Church Fathers were also ignorant on how to translate Scripture similar to what your describing:
Literal
Alagorical
Moral
Analogical
The Reformation got the Body of Christ back on track. Wycliff, Luther, and especially Tyndale translated the Scriptures as literal as literal could be. In Tyndale’s case, if the English (middle english at the time) could not not capture the Greek via transliteration, he would invent a new English word. Two Edged Sword was a brand new word that Tyndale invented for example. No Dynamic Eq here. He died for having such a literal translation.
Paul also tells us to NOT go beyond what is written (I Corinthians 4:6). Since Dynamic Eq does go beyond what is written, it is in violation of the moral code in what Morey calls a “Rabbinic Maxim.”
Again , if clarification needs to be said on a given idiom, then put it in the footnote.
Since the Reformers and Pre-Reformers tried to be literal, and since we are told NOT to go beyond what is written, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the need to deceive the Body of Christ in a translatin of the Bible which is really nothing more then a paraphrase.
If Morey is the same Morey of old, he would have to agree with me.
Jean Cauvin (Ecc 1:18)
Aug 6th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
1) Dynamic Equivalence is a 20th century invention (Nida)
2) Has been the vehicle of and justification of liberal theology (TNIV)
3) Is used to some degree in virtually ALL cults (the concept)
4) Is contrary to the methodological pursuit of ALL Protest Reformers
5) Is based upon subjective analysis without accountability to the text
The subjective means to change a verb into an object is NOT translation. If it’s a verb, translate it as a verb. This method is somewhat mystical and puts autonomy in the translator’s hand.
If anybody owns an NIV, throw it away.
ALL of this is dark.
Let God be true, even if every man is a liar (Romans 3:4).
Jean Cauvin
Aug 6th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I’m feeling much better, thanks. I think it was a bad flu bug or something, but I’m back on my feet by God’s grace!
I’ll wait until you translate the passage in Romans void of dynamic methods before responding to most of what you’ve said above. But I’m curious as to why you’ve reduced your dispensationalism to “eschatalogical theology.” Surely you view your dispensational distinctives beyond eschatology, don’t you? And you must, as a true dispensationalist, admit that there is a factor of some sort when it comes to translation that is particularly dispensational, right?
Anyhow, we’ll pick it up after you translate Rom 6:2 (along with 1 and 3 if need be). I’m curious as to which English words you’ll choose to translate the aorist verb (optative mood, middle voice, third person singular). It’s also found in Gal. 3:21 (one DE translation is “don’t even think about it! – Morey?).
Aug 6th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
You said:
1) Dynamic Equivalence is a 20th century invention (Nida)
2) Has been the vehicle of and justification of liberal theology (TNIV)
3) Is used to some degree in virtually ALL cults (the concept)
4) Is contrary to the methodological pursuit of ALL Protest Reformers
5) Is based upon subjective analysis without accountability to the text
I say:
1) Eugene Nida was the first person to describe it as a translation principle. He didn’t invent it.
2) The fact that it has been abused doesn’t mean we should throw it away. Luther said that that line of reasoning leads to throwing women away, since men have abused them before.
3) Cults also use (to some degree) literal/formal equivalency. Isn’t that self-refuting?
4) Not here, but I will argue and demonstrate that the Reformers used dynamic equivalency in several Bible translations.
5) Sometimes, this is true. But once again, not all men abuse all women (see #2)
Before we get carried away, I agree that NIV owners replace their NIV’s with NASB’s or ESV’s. That goes for TNIV owners too (which I hope are not on this board!).
Aug 6th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
While we wait for Jean’s literal translation of Rom. 6:2, let’s take a look at something he said earlier:
“Tyndale translated the Scriptures as literal as literal could be. In Tyndale’s case, if the English (middle english at the time) could not not capture the Greek via transliteration, he would invent a new English word. Two Edged Sword was a brand new word that Tyndale invented for example. No Dynamic Eq here. He died for having such a literal translation.”
If my errors are due to my lack of experience in TC, then what are his errors due to? According to the above quoted paragraph, no DE is used by Tyndale.
Then what about this?
In Genesis 39:2 we read that “the Lorde was with Joseph, and he was a luckie fellowe”;
in Exodus 15:4 Pharaoh’s “jolly captains” are drowned in the Red Sea;
and in verse 26 of the same chapter God introduces himself as “the Lord thy surgeon.”
Bruce Metzger calls Tyndale’s OT translation “free, bold, and idiomatic.”
(The Bible in Translation – Ancient and English Versions, Baker Academic, pg. 59).
Hardly a staunch literal translation at every turn as he’s asserted.
Any explanations?
Aug 6th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
I just read your post today. You want me to translate Romans 6:1-3, is that right? My computer fried so I can only respond on occassion.
You refered to D.E. a while back for homiletics. DE is only described for the writ of translation.
The fact that the cults use the literal translation is good. It’s not self-refuting. Where they “twick” their verse via their doctrine is where it is bad. Just because they do somethings good does not logically equate the bad things as good also.
You are making a usus loquandi fallacy in reference to Tyndale. Accusing Tyndale of DE would be like accusing Morey for losing his weight on his own.
I will translate Romans 6:1-3 as soon as I have time and get back to you.
Is Morey in agreement with you on this? Just curious. It appears that you are slowly slipping into what is known in theology as heresy.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 9th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen
I reviewed the text here and it’s not a big deal:
Romans 6:2: “may it not be, we who have died to the sin, how shall we not live in it.”
“”"may it not be”"” is in the optative.
“”"how shall we not live in it”"” is the future indicative which sometimes acts identifcal to the aorist subjuntive (e.g Phil 2:10).
Would you like me to translate more? Why is this so difficult to you. To render the text literal allows the saints to grow in the faith and feed upon the Word. This is our only spiritual food avaliable to us. Why burn it with DE and heresy?
Jean Cauvin
Aug 9th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
The probable reason as to your confusion and fallacies might be stemmed in definition, Perhaps you can define the meaning of the following:
1) Translation?
2) Purpose, function of a translation?
3) The means of a translation (methods of approach)?
4) Is DE considered a translation?
5) What is the definition of a paraphrase?
According to the editor of the dead sea scrolls translations:
“Textual criticism deals with the origin and nature of all forms of a text, in our case, the biblical text. This involves a discussion of its putatative original form(s) and an analysis of the various representatives of the changing biblical text. An analysis includes the relationship between these texts, and attempts are made to describe the external conditions of the copying and the procedure of of textual transmission. Scholars involved in textual criticism not only collect data on differernces between the textual witnesses, but they also try to evaluate them. Textual critcism deals only with data deriving from the textual transmission-in other words, readings included in textual witnesses which have been created at an earlier stage, that of the literary growth of the biblical books, are not subjected to the textual evaluation (Emanuel Tov – editor of the dead sea scroll translaters)
Here is another:
The object of ALL textual criticism is to recover so far as possible the actual words written by the writer (Kirsopp Lake)
What about the Amplified Bible? The translator has 27 strong MSS to deal with but ended up concluding via Westcott and Hort. Thus a horrible translation.
When looking for a translation look for these 3 things. You want a Bible that:
1) Clarfies the text
2) to validate the text
3) to maintain and preserve the text
Anything else (like DE) is satanic.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
Your response clearly reveals that you do not understand the topic being discussed. You have heard the term “dynamic equivalency” and have assumed that I am discussing Bible translation, which I’m not.
Your responses also clearly reveal your ignorance of the topics surrounding the OP. Comments such as “You refered to D.E. a while back for homiletics. DE is only described for the writ of translation.”
DE is a phrase used in several hermeneutics and missiology books, and is the focal point in critiquing theological contextualization. I don’t expect everyone here to be “read-up” on some of the subjects I post on – which is why I teach! You are assuming that you have enough of a grasp on all subjects involved, and the fact that you don’t shows in your ignorant posts. This isn’t the first thread that you’ve shown yourself foolish on, and if you want to participate in constructive dialogue you’d better start to read the OP’s and not just scroll down to the bottom and see where you can stir up division. I can see through it, and I’d guess others can too.
But your fallacies which are too many to list, would require too much time and effort to unpack and restructure with health, and since you’re not the type that appreciates being taught and would rather display and vent your bitterness toward Morey (for whatever it is) in almost every post, then the effort put forth is directed towards others that read – so that they would be blessed, not that you would learn.
It is up to you to prove this wrong, and one way would be to read the following quotes from the OP and write a review that proves you’re paying attention (it can be a short paragraph) and that your a dialogue partner worthy of the time and effort. Here are some blocks quoted from the OP:
“Contextualization is the term that describes the process between the exegesis of Scripture and the delivery of its meaning to a receptor culture (i.e. another context). Grant R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), Professor of NT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School defines contextualization as “that dynamic process which interprets the significance of a religion or cultural norm for a group with a different (or developed) cultural heritage” (The Hermeneutical Spiral, pg. 318). Much of the novel fascination we see with contextualization has to do with the recent theories put forth and presented by missiologists. But as Osborne points out “it is important to note that what they call ‘contextualization’ is identical to what homileticians call ‘application’” (Ibid. pg. 318).”
“Again, for the record, I am not opposed to contextualization. In fact, I am doing it here, and I can’t remember a time when I didn’t ever do it. The degree that our contextualization retains and preserves biblical truth should be the degree that it is praised and encouraged. And the degree to which it compromises biblical truth should be rejected. I’ll put it more forceful and say that it must be rejected.”
“First, you may recall some of the controversy surrounding Bible translations such as the NIV et al. One issue was with “dynamic equivalency.” This term refers to the translator’s task of translating thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word or literal (formal equivalency). A good example is given by James R. White (Alpha and Omega Ministries) when he points out that “[T]he French have a saying that goes ‘j’ ai le carfard.” The most literal translation would be, ‘I have the cockroach.’” (The King James Only Controversy, pg. 23) White goes on to say that “[s]pecifically, this saying means ‘I am depressed’ or ‘I have the blues.’” In short, a dynamic equivalence translation (or contextualization) is needed in this case in order to preserve the meaning (I’m depressed – not I have an insect) from French to English.”
“Of course, he was addressing issues in Bible (language) translations, and we are not. But this, I think, is relevant because the theoretical concept of dynamic equivalency is not limited to use in language barriers, but is applied in modern efforts to contextualize the Christian faith, namely, the gospel.”
“The recent missiological debate centers upon ‘dynamic equivalence’ contextualization, which attempts to make the gospel and Christian theology meaningful and relevant in the diverse cultures of our modern world. Many approaches to contextualization have centered upon the contemporary context rather than the ancient text as the generating force” (Osborne, pg. 321)
Nothing has been said about TC until your red herring.
Aug 9th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
I do not have bitterness towards Morey at all. I pray for him often.
Your attempt to say this is an attempt to discredit me before his admireers deeming my position false. This is adhominem and ignorantum elich fallcy.
I read the OP. However, I deny the premises as unsound when applying DE to hermenutics or homiletics, or blog posting, or street language. DE is ultimately a device used in textual criticism and thus Bible translation.
DE is NOT in practice over a Thanksgiving Dinner while listening to Uncle Lloyd’s old stories.
If somebody down the line attempted to apply DE to thanksgiving dinner table discussions, hermenutics, or homiletics to justify DE in Bible translation, they’ve failed miserably.
Your example of the dark side of contextualism regarding the African version is duely noted to be found in the realm of hypocricy. ALL contextualism in Bible translation is dark and wrong. If you call it a paraphrase then it’s deemable. If you call it a translation then you’re a fool.
You seem to denote that I have the burden. You insist this because of Morey’s flip it, flip it, flip it discussions. When Morey ‘flips’ it, he does so with the understanding that Scripture is right, God is true even if everybody else is a liar (Rom 4:3) and thus all else have the burden because they are part of THE lie. I agree with Morey on this. However in this case, YOU have the burden because I stand for Bibilcal truth (I Corinthians 4:6) while you stand outside of orthodoxy on this issue.
You’re a fool to say the actual Word of God, and the gospels are meaningless and non-relevant. This is not a strawmen. You said via a quote:
“The recent missiological debate centers upon ‘dynamic equivalence’ contextualization, which attempt to make the gospel and Christian theology meaningful and relevant….”
Stephen, this is hersey. To say that the Word of God is meaningless and non-relevant (which is the logical opposition – see box of opposites) is simply a non-Christian position.
When the cults ask Morey the question, ” how do you know your translation of the BIble is right? What does he say? He says he translates a verb as a verb, and a noun as a noun. If Morey was pro DE, he would have to say, a verb is an object, and a noun is a verb. This is absurd.
I’m bringing DE down to it’s roots of meaning. translation and textual criticism. Morey’s staff sometimes revere White as invincible sometimes. I admire White on almost every issue, but NOT every issue. Step up and stand for truth via truth, not via man.
Stephen, Scripture tells us to NOT go beyond what is written. You are going beyond what is written, thus you should repent via what Morey calls a rabbinic maxim. If you do go beyond what is written, it is not the Graphe (see 2nd Tim 3:15 vs. 3:16 in relation to the words for Scripture).
Explain I Cor 4:6. in relation to DE.
Your shadow is upon heresy and your breath is upon the devil’s shoulder. You are getting close in denying a primary doctrine of the faith (sola scriptura).
Unless you decide to pull the plug, I’m awaiting for your definitions of terms I’ve listed.
I’m also awaiting your comment on my translation of Romans 6:2. Was my translation meaningless because it was literal?
If you want to continue, i’ll stop pointing out your fallacies and stick to the content of the issues via content proper.
Jean Cauvin (Ecc 1:18)
Aug 10th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hey Stephen,
I forgot to add one more thing. I’ve been proud of you since I’ve been on this blog. You’ve articulated and defened the faith pretty good on most points.
However, this issue saddens me because you are completely outside of Biblical reality
Jean Cauvin
Aug 10th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
From the archives, I’ve dug up an earlier portion of this dialogue to refresh us all as to what was being discussed and how we got here.
**I think we’re talking past each other because you are talking about Bible translation and I am talking about theological contextualization. Both use dynamic equivalence, and that is why I flew in White’s example as a positive demonstration of dynamic equivalence, but continued saying:
“Of course, he was addressing issues in Bible (language) translations, and we are not. But this, I think, is relevant because the theoretical concept of dynamic equivalency is not limited to use in language barriers, but is applied in modern efforts to contextualize the Christian faith, namely, the gospel.”
I went on to show examples of contextualized theology based on nonevangelical hermeneutics. That’s what the post is about.**
I made a clear distinction between what I was talking about, what you were talking about, and how the term DE was being equivocated. I also included my reference to the “modern efforts” which in context refer to missiologists – of which I am not. They (missiologists) are in focus in the statement you attributed to me about the “Word of God” being “meaningless and non-relevant.” You say this is heresy, which is basically the same thing I say in the OP.
**With translation ethics, a 100% literal interpretation is not possible. Dynamic equivalence is essential. Translators have to make decisions, and sometimes two equally competent scholars choose differently. What then? Which one is right?
If a Greek word or phrase has multiple options in the English language, which English word do you use?
If a Greek verb is a participle in the present, which English word[s] do you use? You cannot always use one word-for-word, many times a phrase must be used to correctly translate the one word. i have some examples of this if you would like more, but I doubt you disagree here.**
In this example, I had proskartareo in mind from Acts 2:42 (a recently exegeted text at the time). This particular verb can be articulated in English several different ways, and according to some DE translations, some of these several ways have gone past proper DE to the point of a changed meaning. There are certain portions of the NT that cannot be translated literal, and the most conservative method would be considered formal equivalence (FE). But even many attempts at FE end up exercising DE. You’ve demonstrated this in your attempt to translate Rom. 6:2 literal. Since “may it never be” does not appear in the Greek, you had to select an English phrase to translate the particle for “not” as in a strong negative, and the optative aorist verb for “come into being” and many other ways of saying that. This is to show that DE can be rightly applied in translating, that you can’t take those two words and translate them (literal) into English without a dynamic method. Paul was using an idiom that meant “certainly not, God forbid, by no means, far from it, etc.”
** If the translation ethic is dynamic equivalence and not formal equivalence, then obviously that is wrong. So I do not disagree with you at all there.**
As you can see, you have indeed created another straw man. I am against DE as a translation ethic, and opt for the literal whenever available. Of course, ultimately, I do not rely on English translations, which is why I study the Greek as much as I can.
I appreciate the warning of apostasy, but I am 100% sure that you are reading me wrong. I am not promoting the type of DE that you are attacking – IT IS A STRAW MAN, again…
Aug 11th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
Since you have refused to define your terms your position has been ambiguous (and still is).
The concept behind DE is to change the grammar/syntax of a given clause which is usually done to “appeal” to the consumer. As Morey use to say, follow the money trail.
So if the text has a participle, they change it to an adverb, or if a word is an object, they change it to a verb, or if a term is in a pronoun vocative, they change it to a proper name vocative. This is DE, and this is what I’m trying to convey. It’s wrong every single time.
So if DE is to pick and choose at a buffet table what parts of speech they would like to change, then this is unbiblical (I Cor 4:6). You indicated that it is not possible to translate literally all the time. You need to once again define your terms with literal. If the text is a verb, translate as a verb, if it is subjunctive, translate subjunctive. This is literal. Don’t change the indicative to an imperative. So yes, literal translation is absolutely possible every single time.
To answer your question in what is known as pregnant terms. You use the one that is in context. This is simple. The issue here is that there are virtually 0% of CHRISTIAN textual critics doing textual criticism. I only know of 1. So you’ve been brainwashed by the enemy.
The 2 scholars in your example with two different answers is a false analogy. If a contextual dilemma because virtually all of them are pagan. If a variation occurs in the MSS evidence, then only the true Christian can do the job correctly. Via the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (assuming they’re in fellowship with the Father (Eph 5:15-18), the Lord will reveal to them the answer. Of course they would use all the rules of textual criticism, but this is essential if truth is the goal. Nobody on the planet does textual criticism like this to my knowledge, and thus the Christian should be warned.
Thus a literal translation conveys the actual parts of speech and syntax as prescribed in a given text. Morey thinks Phil 2:10 should convey the should instead of the shall (1977 NASB vs. 1995 NASB). Even though I believe Morey is wrong on this issue (subjunctive aorist is sometimes the same as a future indicative) this illustrates my point regarding DE. Morey use to be against this, who knows what he, believes now.
Bible translations are a business unfortunately. Truth is not relevant. So DE is not used typically for clarity to begin with, but rather to warp doctrine via propaganda so as to not offend some denominations. I could give you numerous example as I’m sure Morey can in his Verse Abuse series.
DE is used in reference to the text itself in relation to translation.. Again, it is not about homiletics, hermeneutics, or Thanksgiving Table Discussions. This is ridiculous
But you believe a literal translation is important? You just don’t think it can be done all the time. How do you know when it can be done and when it can’t be done? Whatever the scholars say (pagan scholars)?
You’ve confused terms and made some categorical fallacies. You disagree in all cases of DE in translation is you feel the literal is possible. Is this your position? If so, I retract the factor of heresy and I assert the notion ignorance as the comment..
I believe you are confusing literal translations into transliterations. If you convey a passage according to the parts of speech and syntax given, you are literal. This can be done 100% of the time if money is not your objective of lust in the process.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 16th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hey Stephen,
I have a gut feeling that most people agree with me (Christians) on here. Thus the silence from the rest. This is irelavant but interesting.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 16th, 2008
Travis
All,
I emailed my pastor on this subject, knowing he supports the methodology of Tim Keller, but the question was not answered yet. However I wanted you guys to help me think through and look through scripture about an issue.
While answering questions, my pastor made a few comments that I was not sure how to respond to.
“I think marijuana should be made legal, scripture nowhere says that it shouldn’t be illegal, but as far as right now it is illegal and therefore we are commanded not to rebel against scripture, and used an example of vicadin and how people use vicadin legally and how much it messes people up”
NEXT
The mandatory reading of scripture is a new idea, because a lot of people down the ages have not had access to the scripture and were faithful to the Lord based on what was taught to them, and the amount you read and that you read has nothing to do with your salvation.
**I believe this is a true statement, however, we do have access to scripture now, maybe not everyone in the world, but I know Americans do.
Sep 29th, 2008
Mrs. Watkins
Travis,
1) God’s law before man’s law.
-Christians should follow man’s law unless they feel it violates Scripture. If they feel it necessary to break man’s law, they should be ready to accept the consequences. For example, if they think government has too many laws on us and shouldn’t dictate our traffic laws, they can speed, but need to pay the fine if they get pulled over.
-There are many legal things that violate Scripture. Some clear (abortion), some not as much (how much prescription drugs is too much?) so they need to pray and use discernment in those areas and understand that just because something is legal doesn’t mean God approves of it.
2) It’s true that only God saves.
-Reading Scripture doesn’t save but it is a tool used for santification. It doesn’t mean that ones is sanctified just by reading the Bible. If they are doing it grudgingly or in hopes of scoring brownie points with God, it’s not going to have much effect. God has provided the Word for us to grow in our personal life and to equip us for dealing with nonbelievers so we can be used as a tool in their salvation and/or santification. So while it’s not necessary for salvation, those who have access need to take advantage of the privilege of having a Bible and pray for those that don’t.
-Also, if a community has just one Bible for many, then they should gather and have public readings. There should be sharing with those who know how to read. They shouldn’t just be told stories and summaries, but hear it straight from the source.
Sep 29th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis’ pastor said: “I think marijuana should be made legal, scripture nowhere says that it shouldn’t be illegal, but as far as right now it is illegal and therefore we are commanded not to rebel against scripture, and used an example of vicadin and how people use vicadin legally and how much it messes people up”
Scripture doesn’t dictate the speed limit either. This is a confusion of law. Positive law is law set up by people within a particular society. Positive law will reflect the beliefs of the people. Positive law may be influenced by divine law or humanistic theories about morals and ethics. Much (MUCH) more can be said on this, but to keep it short and to the point, a statement like this should not be taken seriously. As soon as the student realizes that Scripture does not condemn drugs illegal (according to positive law) but categorizes drug use as sin (illegal to divine law) and connects it to paganism, sorcery, magic, etc., (pharmakos) it’ll be dropped in a second…
He also said: “The mandatory reading of scripture is a new idea…”
Perhaps he can exegete the following: “Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. (1 Tim. 4:11-13)”
It’s not a new idea.
Sep 29th, 2008
Travis
Stephen said..
As soon as the student realizes that Scripture does not condemn drugs illegal (according to positive law) but categorizes drug use as sin (illegal to divine law) and connects it to paganism, sorcery, magic, etc., (pharmakos) it’ll be dropped in a second…
Couldnt this also be used for tattoos or wearing certain jewlery(cross’s), or what about using it for medical purposes(if proven to be affective)
Right now until I understand this issue scripturaly, I am against all drugs because of experience, and what it does to people, including vicadin.
(pharmakos)… ill do some research on this word.
As far as 1 Tim 4:11 goes I believe he would say that this says the public reading of scripture, and teaching, since they didnt have the “pocket scripture”
Sep 29th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
The point is not regarding the pagan connection per se, so tattoos, jewelry, etc., are irrelevant to the discussion. “Pharmakos” which is literally “the act of administering drugs” is translated “sorcery” in most English translations. In Gal. 5 it is categorized as a desire of the flesh in contrast to the desires of the Spirit. Paul says,
“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. (Gal. 5:16-17 ESV)”
Paul says that the works that find their motivating force in the flesh are evident. He lists some of them and includes “pharmakos.” He concludes by saying,
“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:21b ESV)”
Drug use is a carnal desire of the depraved nature of man and is in total opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit. Notice the contrast with
“…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:23-24 ESV)”
Drugs produce an altered state of consciousness and disable the rational facilities of a person. While on drugs like marijuana, meth, mushrooms, LSD, etc., the person is unable to obey Scripture, which commands us to be sober, test all things, beware, be alert, love God with our mind, and as we see from the above referenced verses, have self control.
“The work of the Spirit so satisfies the believer that sinful practices lose their appeal.” (How to Keep Your Kids Drug Free, by Dr. Robert Morey, pgs. 36-37)
Sep 29th, 2008
Travis
Aaaahhh!
I didnt realize the word was translated that way.
I do know that when people are on drugs, the ability to think is very very limited, so i definetly agree with you that you can not be sober test all things, though I know some will arguee they can on marijuana or vicadin.
Im guessing Pharmakos, is where we get our word pharmecy etc. im going to spend some time in the word in the morning and go through a word study
thanks Stephen
Sep 29th, 2008
Travis
Open question to this forum!!!
Contextualization or application. should we use terms that no longer apply to a majority of America today, ie Hermanutics, omniscience, exegisis, thou, ye….?
Should we speak like the people around us?
Oct 13th, 2008
Glen
Travis,
Absolutely! Just because the teaching in America is not being done as well as it used to does not mean we should stop trying. If we stop using theological terms when we teach we will not be teaching the full Gospel and that leads to grave danger.
Oct 13th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Amen, Glen!
How is your baby, Daniel doing?
Oct 13th, 2008
Travis
But do we need to use those specific words.
can we use the definition of the word since the word is irrelevent to society Christian and Non Christian
I agree people should be apt to learn, there is a deeper issue here I think it is the laziness of people (DONT MAKE ME THINK TO HARD)
Oct 13th, 2008
Glen
I would say the “thee, thou, ye” is not necessary unless you normally speak the Queen’s English. However, the other terms I would say yes. Why coin a different term to describe the definition of a word that already exists? As for the laziness of people I would tend to agree that a lot of Christians today are lazy. I have heard recently from some in my family “I have a simple faith and that’s good enough” when we were talking about election and free will. There needs to be a hunger to understand the Word of God more and we need to use the terminology that is approperiate and already established.
RM,
Daniel is doing much better. Thanks everyone for all of your prayers they are much appreciated and needed. He is still in the hospital as the doctors are trying to get the settings for his ventilator set to exactly what he needs. He’ll probably be there for about another 10 days (today is week 4 so far). He’ll be coming home on a lot of equipment and my wife and I are starting to learn how to operate it. Please continue to pray for wisdom for everyone involved and continued healing. Also pray for our other two boys (7 and 4) who are missing us as we are at the hospital so much and that Christy and I balance our time with them well.
Again, God bless you all for your prayers.
Oct 14th, 2008
Reply to “The Dark Side of Theological Contextualization”