“Don’t talk to him.  He has a demon!”

It was a fairly cool day in the Sindh, Pakistan when I sat down on the cot in the courtyard of Nathaniel’s¹ house to chat with him.  I noticed another man in the corner of the courtyard, sitting by himself.  I asked Nathaniel who he was.  “He is my uncle,” he replied.  “But don’t talk to him.  He has a demon.”  I was somewhat taken aback by this and rehearsed in my mind any teaching or training I had received in Canada that would have equipped me to deal with a demon.  I came up with a blank and so took Nathaniel’s advice.

each culture’s reading and experience of the world is vastly different

While living in Pakistan we came to the realization that the stories of Jesus’ authority over demons had a far different impact for Sindhis than the stories had for Canadians.  While Sindhis welcome the possibility of overcoming a very real fear in their lives, Canadians tend to be puzzled about the lack of demons in the world and discuss how “demons” should be understood.  The contexts determine the significance of the story.  Because each culture’s reading and experience of the world is vastly different, people’s responses to the stories are different as well.  Similarly, some expressions of the gospel message that are impacting in Canada do not connect with the Sindhi people.

The Main Question

Some people assume that there is one particular understanding of the significance of the cross that is “real,” all other biblical descriptions or images are considered mere metaphors of that one perspective.  But is this so? Or are all the images equally true and “real” expressions of the atonement?  In particular, is the “penal substitution” description of the meaning of the cross, i.e., that “Jesus satisfies the wrath of God by enduring the punishment we deserved on account of our sins,”² the essence of the gospel message, or is it one expression out of several, albeit one that helps those understand the gospel who have a particular worldview?

I propose that the “penal substitution” picture is a true and valid explanation of the gospel that, along with other equally valid metaphors, helps us understand and experience the reality of Christ’s work on the cross.  It is a picture that connects well in a culture that values the rule of law and sees justice as a leading principle. However, it is not the only valid image.  Other cultural contexts require different or additional descriptions to appropriately grasp the enormity of the gospel message. Due to the nature of the gospel, multiple images are required to do justice to the universe-altering impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection; and, due to the nature of cultures, multiple images are required to speak to the diversity of worldviews and experiences of reality.

What I am NOT saying

When I speak of an “image” or “picture” of the gospel, I am not suggesting that it is less than, or other than, the gospel. Rather, the use of images and metaphors is a necessary form of communication that allows us to comprehend the gospel by using symbols and concepts familiar to us.  It can be compared to the image of God as “father” in the New Testament.  This description of God used by Jesus is a contextualization of an absolute truth; it is an aspect of God’s character that constitutes reality. Jesus uses a cultural symbol and metaphor (“father”) so that we may grasp the relationship that God desires to have with us. The depth of God’s love for us is revealed through our experiences of familial love in our human contexts.  In the same way, proper contextualization of Christ’s death on the cross draws on appropriate and impacting images from the cultural setting in order to communicate in a way that resonates with that culture.  By “resonates,” I mean that it connects in a meaningful and relevant way so that lives are transformed.

When I suggest that a contextualization of the gospel will use a different metaphor for salvation than “penal substitution,” this should not be construed as a denial of the truth of that description.  A judicial or legal perspective of our standing before God is a biblical picture. Perhaps the clearest imagery used to support this view comes, not from the New Testament, but from the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all (NIV, verses 5,6).

This understanding of the meaning of the cross recognizes that God cannot overlook sin, and the consequence of sin is God’s wrath, i.e., death (Rom 6:23).  Furthermore, it emphasizes substitution, the need for Jesus to die so that we can live.  “Either we die or he dies.”³ “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

Many Images, One Gospel

These are important truths that cannot be lost, but more than one explanation can accommodate them. Moreover, it is important for the sake of communication of the gospel into other cultural contexts that we do not to elevate one concept, such as “penal substitution,” above the other images of atonement given to us in the Bible in order to communicate these realities.  If we assume that the “penal substitution” scenario, in which we are acquitted of punishment because Jesus pays the price through his death, is the one and only true description of the work of the cross, then all the other images – redemption, ransom, propitiation, sacrifice, forgiveness, deliverance, etc., – become “mere” metaphors pointing to the one penal substitution truth.  In contrast, contextualization assumes that all the biblical descriptions of the death and resurrection of Jesus can be used to bring people to faith in Christ, and their emphasis and expression will depend on the context.

There are a number of reasons why teaching penal substitution as the only true and real understanding of the significance of the cross is problematic:

• First, it undermines the impact of the other biblical images, which are also true and real descriptions of the cross of Christ, by attempting to make them “fit” into a penal substitution model.
• Second, when it is considered the only “real” description of the meaning of the cross, people attempt to answer all questions about the atonement according to that one picture. The result is that the logical implication of the metaphor can be pushed too far leading to a perversion of the gospel message.  For example, I have talked to a number of people who have abandoned their faith because this expression was interpreted as “divine child abuse” or a cruel manipulation.
• Third, it fails to recognize that a worldview grid that emphasizes law and justice makes this particular image resonate in a western culture.  As a result, it is sometimes used as the default explanation within cross-cultural contexts even though other biblical images would have a better impact and communicate a clearer message of the cross.

The Core of the Gospel message

There are aspects of the gospel message that must not be lost, no matter what image is used to communicate the gospel.  The core is that Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplishes our deliverance from sin (1 Cor 15:3,4).  The images used to communicate that reality will depend on the context of the audience and will require the message to be shaped in a way that speaks to them in their cultural forms and language.  The following article will explain why contextualization is inevitable, and provide the beginning of a theology of culture to support the claim that any and all explanations of the cross are culturally shaped.  A future article will provide one particular model of the atonement that facilitates the contextualization of the gospel in other cultures.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships. If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Not his real name.
  
• 2 Green, J & Baker, M 2000. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 13.
• 3 Morris, L. 1955, 1983. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 213.

Both translation orientations are found in all Bible versions and so, strictly speaking, it is misleading to label a version “literal” or “meaning-based.” Literal versions also consider what the translation will mean in the receptor language, and meaning-based versions often provide translation through which the reader may recognize words and structures of the original languages. (see the IBS English Bible Translation Comparison chart in which versions are charted according to their “degree of literalness.”) The following articles seek to show that the “degree of literalness” is unrelated to the accuracy of translation and should not be used to judge one version as more the word of God than another. Accuracy must be gauged according to the success of any translation to communicate the message of the original manuscripts to its intended audience.

In these articles “version” (n) refers to a complete translated text like the NRSV (literal version) or CEV (meaning-based version), while “translation” (n) refers to the text within the version. For example, any version, whether labeled “literal” or “meaning-based” will have both styles of translation.

The author of the articles has been involved in Bible translation as supervisor of the Sindhi translation project for the Pakistan Bible Society during the past 18 years.

______________________________________________

3. How Culture Affects Bible Translation

Reading in a fog

My son had two small New Testaments in his room.  I picked up one and without noting the version (it was NKJV¹) began to read from Ephesians 3.  Both my son and I struggled to make sense of the passage. It was like driving through fog: possible, but lacking the comfortableness of clarity.  A couple of nights later I picked up the other small New Testament and discovered that it was the Contemporary English Version (CEV).  I re-read the same passage and the ease of clarity made it feel like we were driving down that same road on a bright summer day.  Because we did not have to struggle with the meaning, the relevance of the passage was easily accessible.  Compare for yourself:

NKJV:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles–if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

CEV:

Christ Jesus made me his prisoner, so that I could help you Gentiles. You have surely heard about God’s kindness in choosing me to help you. In fact, this letter tells you a little about how God has shown me his mysterious ways. As you read the letter, you will also find out how well I really do understand the mystery about Christ. No one knew about this mystery until God’s Spirit told it to his holy apostles and prophets. And the mystery is this: Because of Christ Jesus, the good news has given the Gentiles a share in the promises that God gave to the Jews. God has also let the Gentiles be part of the same body.

God treated me with kindness. His power worked in me, and it became my job to spread the good news.

Either clarity Or word-for-word

If the purpose of translation is a representation of the form and structure of the original text, then the NKJV is the better translation.  However, if the point is communication and ease in understanding the message, then the CEV is clearly superior.  But can’t a translation have both word-for-word correspondence and ease of understanding; does it have to be either-or?  Unfortunately, due to the nature of language and culture, “either-or” is the norm in Bible translation.

there is an inverse relationship between … “word-for-word” correspondence and the communication of meaning

The English Standard Version (ESV), according to the preface on its website, “is an ‘essentially literal’ translation” that emphasizes “word-for-word” correspondence, in order to “be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.”² However, unfortunately for literal translations, there is an inverse relationship between maintaining the structure of the original text with “word-for-word” correspondence and the communication of meaning. To the extent that a translation maintains original structure and words, it fails to provide the meaning.  Therefore, to claim direct access to both structure and meaning is oxymoronic. It is only by using the target language structure and words (i.e., the language of the reader) that communication is achieved.

Like rote learning, repetition of the words does not guarantee comprehension.  It is only by “putting it into your own (culture’s) words” that meaning is ensured.  In the Sindh, many young boys go to school in madrassas where they memorize the Quran in word perfect Arabic.  Such a stress on the purity of the original text, while impressive, fails to result in comprehension, for they do not speak Arabic.

Cut and Uncut diamonds

literal versions of the Bible often under translate

In a previous article, I argued that there are no pure synonyms between languages; no two words will have exactly the same range of nuance.  I further argued that individual words do not carry meaning in and of themselves, but only in their relationship to other words in the sentence, and this relationship varies from language to language.  I also pointed out that information common to the original author and audience is often kept implicit in the text and thus unavailable to the uninitiated reader.  As a result, I concluded that literal versions of the Bible often under translate and thus fail to communicate (and occasionally miscommunicate) the meaning to their intended audience.³ They seek to avoid the accusation of misrepresenting the original text, thus resulting in a rendering that is often obscure.

Meaning based translations, on the other hand, deliberately choose to be precise for the sake of clarity, thus running a greater danger of misinterpretation. Literal translations can claim greater accuracy in reflecting form and structure of the original text as well as maintaining a broad possibility of nuance in the text. Meaning based translations, by limiting the possible meanings through clarification, have the greater potential to communicate the message of the text.

Literal translations are like uncut diamonds, no part is left out, but the beauty is hidden. Meaning based translations are like cut diamonds, they are shaped in order to reveal the inner light.  The value and potential of the uncut diamond requires an expert eye to be appreciated, the beauty of the cut diamond is available for all who can see.  On the other hand, shaping a diamond means that certain aspects are sacrificed in order to create an attractive diamond, while an uncut diamond maintains all the possible configurations that the artisan can discover.

Textual meaning is determined by culture

I would like to develop a point hinted at in that previous article:  Language cannot be understood apart from its relationship to the surrounding context.  Naomi’s rationale in sending her daughters-in-law back to their own people by asking, “Am I going to give birth to more sons?” (Ruth 1:11), can only be understood in the context of a patriarchal society in which a woman’s identity is dependent upon her relationship to a man.  Paul’s vow to cut his hair (Acts 18:18) cannot be comprehended without a perspective on how vows functioned in that society, how hair could be part of a vow and what the significance of such an act would mean for the participants.  All these background realities are tied up in the culture which gives the text its meaning.

culture … gives the text its meaning

Belief that literal translations are more accurate renderings of God’s word than meaning based translations is based on a misunderstanding of culture and language.  As a representation of the form and structure of the original language, the claim is true, but not in the arena of communicating the message. The idea that a reproduction of linguistic forms coupled with word-for-word correspondence will also provide accuracy and clarity in meaning is based on the mistaken assumption that cultures (including languages) are basically synonymous with each other.  If that were true then people of all times and places would think similar thoughts in similar ways with similar priorities for similar purposes, the only difference being the linguistic symbols used to express those thoughts. Where this naïve and mechanistic approach to translation breaks down is in the reality that cultures (including languages) are very different from each other; people do not think in synonymous patterns using equivalent concepts.  Even when the language is the same, indicating significant overlap of meaning between groups of people, cultures have their distinct values and ways of thinking that affect the nuances of their speech.

Therefore, getting closer to the original biblical language structure does not guarantee that the reader is better able to access the original meaning.  In fact, because of the great discrepancy between cultures, concepts, language structures and idiomatic usage, faithfulness to the original form is more likely to obscure the meaning for the reader – in the same way that an uncut diamond does not impress the uninitiated.

Ignore or Bridge the Gap

As an example, the Old Testament cannot be translated without a clear understanding of the ancient patriarchal assumptions of Hebrew society. If the translation is into a language with different cultural assumptions, such as the egalitarian orientation in Canadian society, miscommunication can easily occur. In Naomi’s case above, the average Canadian will sympathize with Naomi’s loss of husband and sons, but will not comprehend the implications of that loss and therefore miss a crucial point of the story.  The English translation of the book of Ruth necessarily uses words and concepts that, for the Canadian reader, derive their meaning from our egalitarian context and will be read that way.  But Naomi is not a woman with an individual identity who has suffered a great loss.  She is a woman who has lost her identity and purpose, because in a patriarchal system these aspects of a woman’s being are dependent upon her relationship with a man – father, husband or son.  Without this basic understanding a key redemptive phrase of the book cannot be properly understood: “Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today” (ESV), clarified in the TEV as “Praise the Lord! He has given you a grandson today to take care of you.”  Through the blessing of a male heir, Naomi has received a “redemption” that has meaning within the patriarchal context: her identity has been restored.

The translator cannot assume that communication of this essential point will occur through a literal translation because the cultural assumptions are vastly different.  There is a cultural gap that needs to be bridged in order for comprehension to occur.  Literal translations by design ignore the cultural gap and leave it to the reader to reach the correct interpretation.  Such translations are not incorrect, but they are incomplete and rely upon the ability of the reader to come to the right conclusion through knowledge obtained outside the text.  Meaning based translations, on the other hand, seek to bridge the cultural gap.  The danger for this translation style, on the other hand, is misinterpretation, which may lead the reader astray, if the translators have not taken the appropriate care to ensure correct communication.

Is the cultural gap that serious?

In the modern world of globalization, translation is a daily reality for most people and seems relatively uncomplicated.  A world leader speaks on the newscast and a voiceover provides the translation.  We often read translated material in our newspapers and books.  Why should this not be the same for the Bible? Is the cultural gap really that difficult to bridge?

Three important aspects need to be kept in mind concerning the translation of news stories and voiceovers in the modern context:

1. The translator is usually completely bilingual and familiar with both cultural contexts, and thus able to provide the phrasing required for mutual understanding in both societies.
2. Cultural contexts in this modern era of globalization have many points of commonality and understanding, or at lease exposure, in crucial areas such as technology, politics, ethical norms, and assumptions, due to ongoing exposure and interaction.
3. When errors in translation do occur, they can be quickly corrected, or at least have alternatives pointed out by others who are equally expert in understanding both languages and cultures.

Bible translation does not have these advantages.  The original languages of the Bible are dead languages.  They are dead because their cultures are dead.  The biblical cultures, which provided the meaning to those languages, do not exist any longer. There are no longer people living in the cultures of the Old Testament or the New Testament to whom we can refer for understanding. Even the resurrection of the Hebrew language in modern Israel does not imply that they are better able to understand the ancient Hebrew writings. The modern context of Israel is a vastly different cultural context and does not provide a framework within which the meaning of the ancient text can be discerned. As a result we must rely on scholarship outside the text in order to reveal its meaning.

Remain mute when you talk!

This reality is particularly evident in the use of metaphors and idioms. A recent dialogue on Gen 31:24 in the Bible Translation chat room illustrates this point.  God commands Laban when confronting Jacob to be “careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad” (ESV).  This literal translation of an ancient Hebrew idiom is not understandable in our modern English context.  The natural understanding according to modern English usage would be that Laban is instructed to remain mute, not uttering any words at all.  What the ESV has refused to do is to bridge the cultural gap, leaving the reader with only their own context to interpret this saying.  Because the modern context is vastly different from Jacob’s era, there will likely be misinterpretation.

Meaning based translations, on the other hand, will translate using the idiom of the target language.  That is, they will choose a wording that relates to the linguistic norms of the readers’ culture.  By doing the work of bridging the cultural gap, translators allow the reader to read according to the way their language is normally used, and through this process communication is achieved.  For example, the TEV reads, “Be careful not to threaten Jacob in any way.”⁴

Communication requires bridging the gap

The scholarly checks and balances of a translation team are far more likely to produce the right meaning

The meaning of the text is found within the relationship of the language to the culture.  Therefore when the culture gap is large between reader and the culture within which the text has meaning – as it is for the biblical text – it cannot be bridged by the average reader without interpretive help.  While it is correct that “ ‘thought-for-thought’ [meaning based] translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture,”⁵ it must be realized that without an interpretative approach that expresses the text within the forms of contemporary culture, there cannot be communication of meaning.  The scholarly checks and balances of a translation team are far more likely to produce the right meaning than the intuitive assumptions of the uninformed readers who can only read Scripture through the interpretive grid of their own culture.  The choice in Bible versions is not between “accuracy” and “interpretive,” but between a lack of clarity requiring exegetical skill beyond that of the average reader, and the communication of meaning in a way that has impact and clarity.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 The advertisement from the publishers states that “Only the New King James Version offers precision and clarity without sacrificing readability” at http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/dept.asp?dept_id=19700&TopLevel_id=190000 accessed Feb 12, 2009.
• 2 http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/preface/ accessed Feb 12, 2009.
• 3 In their preface (see previous footnote), the ESV phrases this weakness positively: “the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language,” without recognizing that a lack of preciseness is another way to define the failure to communicate.
• 4 The SIL ‘Translator’s Notes’ say: Be careful not to say anything: The Hebrew verb literally means “to say.”  However, when used with the word hiHamer “keep, guard, be careful” it has the sense of “threaten.” Taken from Translator’s Workplace, version 4.0 2002 SIL International.
• 5 http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy accessed Feb 12, 2009.

What kind of God commands people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow up crowds of people?  What kind of God tells people to drive passenger planes into the sides of buildings?  What kind of God commands parents to kill their children?  What kind of God would come to one of his worshippers and say, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love – Isaac – and … sacrifice him…” (Gen 22:2)?

Those of us who believe in God as the loving father of the Lord Jesus Christ quickly rise to the challenge these questions represent and protest that the latter question is in a different category than the first three.  There is a fundamental difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of terrorists.  Nonetheless, I suspect that the average churchgoer would find it hard to provide a defense or articulate a reasonable distinction. Furthermore, most outsiders to the faith, reading the Genesis passage, would likely categorize the God of Genesis 22 with the God of the first three questions.  One friend of mine described God as “despot” and the Bible as “full of terrors” because of passages such as the sacrifice of Isaac.

In fact, skeptics often like to pose the question: “Suppose that God told you to kill your child…. If you are a God-Fearing Christian, do you have any theological grounds for refusing to kill your own child?”¹ The correct answer to this question for Christians is to deny that the God of the Bible would require this, and to provide legitimate theological grounds for refusing to do such an evil deed.  But such theology needs to be explained in light of Genesis 22, not by ignoring it.

A theology about the Bible

I believe that part of the reason for this uncomfortable comparison of the God of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, with the God of terrorists is an inadequate theology about the Bible.  In speaking of a theology about the Bible, I am not referring to a biblical theology, that is, a description of God and his relationship to humanity developed from an understanding of biblical content.  Rather, I am referring to an understanding concerning how the Bible functions in shaping our faith.

Wm. Smalley provides a description of how the Bible is used and viewed by people around the world. Some approach the Bible as a cultural artifact of the Christian religion.  Others make magical use of the Bible and view it as a fetish. For many people the Bible is primarily a law book to be obeyed.  Another use of the Bible is as textbook to provide information. Others use the Bible as a reference, to answer the questions they have. Another use of the Bible is as a behavioral manual, a guide in developing moral practice. A common use of the Bible is as a devotional book, a book of worship.  For many people the Bible is an oracle, through which they hear God speak.2

the Bible should be primarily viewed as revelation of the character, nature and will of God

Without denying the validity of some of the uses mentioned, I would argue that the Bible should be primarily viewed as revelation of the character, nature and will of God.  We need to the approach the Bible for the purpose of understanding who God is and how he relates to us.  It is only through the formulation of biblically shaped perspective of God that we can comprehend who we are: people created in his image.  Genesis 22, then, is not a passage that we are to explain away in order to preserve a prior concept of God, but one through which we develop a better understanding of the God we worship.  However, in order to do this, we must view the passage through the correct “lenses.”

Developing the right exegetical “lenses”

The Islamic understanding of their sacred scriptures, the Koran, is that it is a book that was written in heaven and then dictated to the prophet Mohammed.  It is a book that is 100% divine without any human participation.  Thus, it is pure and holy and untranslatable.  The story is told of a journalist who approached a Muslim cleric and asked for a translation of the Koran that he could read in order to understand it.  He was told, “There is no translation of the Koran.  You must learn Arabic!”

The Christian view of the Bible is different.  Christians also believe that the Bible is 100% divine.  But it is also 100% the product of human beings, albeit in a different way. God teaches us his truth, but it only occurs through human language, human understanding and human culture.  In order to communicate, God accommodated to people, he did not command that they accommodate to him. “Prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”  (2 Peter 1:21 TNIV). Moreover, the incarnation is the ultimate accommodation to our need: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14 TNIV). It is the realization that God spoke to people within their language, within their perspective of the world, and within their culture and worldview, that provides the basis for Bible translation. The divine message can be represented in any language, because the original is also not a divine, but a human language.

The divine message can be represented in any language

Furthermore, this human cultural dynamic of the biblical passage provides us with the “lenses” through which we can properly understand what on earth God was doing when he said to Abraham, “Sacrifice your son.”

Cultural Contrast

Abraham was surrounded by gods.  He was in Canaan and the Canaanites had many gods: mountain gods, river gods, fertility gods, and gods of war.  Abraham’s understanding of the gods came from the context in which he lived.  His relationship and response to the God who had chosen him was shaped by the worldview that he lived in.  For the people of that time, the most powerful god could do the greatest things, and the most powerful god demanded the greatest sacrifice.  Some of those gods demanded human sacrifice – Molech is the best known – because they demanded the best.

It may have been a surprise to Abraham to receive this command.  But, as far as Abraham knew, it was not out of character for the way gods acted.  He wasn’t shocked.  He didn’t go through a lot of soul searching.  He didn’t argue with God.  He didn’t look for a way out. Instead, “early the next morning” he set out to fulfill this command. Why would he do this? Because in Abraham’s world this was consistent with the way gods acted. The greatest god demanded the greatest sacrifice, and God was proving to Abraham that he was the greatest God. Abraham obeyed without question, because that was the response required by his cultural setting and by his vow to be the servant of this God.

However, from our modern Canadian perspective, the scenario is strange and perverse.  If this happened to us, we would question it.  We would look for a second opinion.  We would doubt our sanity.  We would do all we could to get out of this dilemma, because it doesn’t make sense.  This is not the God we know. The story makes no sense to us in our culture because we understand God in Jesus Christ – a God who loves and redeems, not one who destroys.  My friend looks at this story and sees a god of terror, a vindictive and a cruel god.  And I know why, because I live in the same culture and see things the same way.

But for Abraham, this scenario fit perfectly in his world.  This was how gods acted. This story made perfect sense to Abraham because it was played out over and over again in human sacrifice all around him.  This, for Abraham, was normal. God was speaking Abraham’s language.

What Abraham didn’t know, and needed to learn, was the character of the God who had chosen him.

The Message is in the Medium

I am not that kind of god

At the point of sacrificing his son God commanded Abraham to stop, he provided a ram and Isaac was saved.  In essence, God said, “I am not that kind of god.  I am not like the common gods that you see around you that hurt and destroy and damage. I am not a god who destroys life, but one who gives life.  I am the redeemer.  I am the provider.”

This passage is one of the major turning points in understanding God in the whole history of humanity.  It is a watershed lesson about the character of God.  This is the beginning of the comprehension that God is a God of love, provision and redemption.  That understanding begins here and grows throughout the Bible, culminating in the cross of Christ.  Isaac’s sacrifice is the prelude to the cross, in which God says to humanity, “Not only do I not bring death and destruction, but I suffer death and destruction so that you may have life.” In that greatest of all accommodations to our weakness – the cross – lies our salvation. God becomes a frail human being dying on a cross, bringing life to all, showing us that the greatest God is the one who has the greatest love.

When this passage is looked at through our modern cultural lenses, it is easy to fear that God may be a god of terrors and an arbitrary despot.  But this is not the intended lesson.  Rather, it was understood by Moses, the Israelites and all the worshippers of God throughout scripture, as a foundational lesson revealing the sacredness of human life and God’s redemptive nature. Abraham had a lesson to learn and through him, humanity had a lesson to learn about the true character of the God who provides.

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all

Would I kill my child if God told me to?  Absolutely not.  Because that is not the God I worship. We know and believe that God will never do nor command that which is evil because of Jesus Christ.  “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5 TNIV).

If you would like to contact Mark, please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 posted by Terry at http://able2know.org/topic/22070-1.  Accessed Sept 28, 2008.
• 2 Smalley, William A. 1991. Translation As Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement. Macon, Georgia:Mercer University Press. 224-233.

Both translation orientations are found in all Bible versions and so, strictly speaking, it is misleading to label a version “literal” or “meaning-based.” Literal versions also consider what the translation will mean in the receptor language, and meaning-based versions often provide translation through which the reader may recognize words and structures of the original languages. (see the IBS English Bible Translation Comparison chart in which versions are charted according to their “degree of literalness.”) The following articles seek to show that the “degree of literalness” is unrelated to the accuracy of translation and should not be used to judge one version as more the word of God than another. Accuracy must be gauged according to the success of any translation to communicate the message of the original manuscripts to its intended audience.

In these articles “version” (n) refers to a complete translated text like the NRSV (literal version) or CEV (meaning-based version), while “translation” (n) refers to the text within the version. For example, any version, whether labeled “literal” or “meaning-based” will have both styles of translation.

The author of the articles has been involved in Bible translation as supervisor of the Sindhi translation project for the Pakistan Bible Society during the past 18 years.

______________________________________________

2. Weaknesses of translation styles

“In your own words”

During our time in Pakistan, my wife, Karen, went with a friend to see a doctor. With little explanation, the doctor diagnosed the friend and prescribed some pills. My wife pursued the issue further and asked the doctor the reason for the diagnosis. Speaking in English, he began to explain the illness. Something about his style of speech struck Karen as strange, until she realized what it was: the doctor was reciting verbatim from an English medical textbook! Rather than provide an explanation in his own words, he repeated a passage that had been memorized in medical school.

“in your own words”

In contrast, I remember many times as I was growing up in Canadian schools that the teacher would tell us to explain something “in your own words.” The teacher’s goal was to ensure comprehension on the part of the students. Rote repetition probably meant that the student did not understand but was hiding their ignorance behind the words of those who did. This western education method is less valued in Pakistan where rote repetition is the norm, underlining the priority given to the wisdom and tradition of the elders and scholars.

Both literal and meaning-based translations … have limitations”

Both of these orientations are reflected in my work as I check the meaning of the Sindhi Bible translation. Although I am familiar to some extent with the original languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew, I am far from fluent and rely heavily on the scholarship of others through commentaries and translation helps. One of my “short-cuts” is to use a literal translation, such as the NRSV, to provide an indication of the structure and words of the original manuscript. In contrast, when I am puzzled about the meaning of a verse, I do not consult literal translations because they do not clarify the sense, but only reproduce that structure and those words that have hidden the meaning from me. Instead, I turn to meaning-based translations. Because they have put the meaning “in their own words,” according to the English vernacular I am familiar with, I can often quickly discover what the verse means. Both literal and meaning-based translations are useful, but they both have limitations. The key weaknesses of both orientations are outlined below.

Weaknesses of Literal translations

a. Lack of clarity can mislead and discourage readers

ESV’s success … highlights its primary weakness

Kermit Titrud provides the following examples of awkward or misleading renditions in the highly literal English Standard Version (ESV). These examples do not constitute failure or inaccuracy of translation, for the version intentionally uses a Greek or Hebrew rather than English construction in order to provide an equivalence of the form of the original language (formal equivalence). At the same time, the ESV’s success in achieving this goal highlights its primary weakness, because communication of God’s word to those unfamiliar with the original text is sometimes lacking.

Mark 1:11 reads in the ESV, “with you I am well pleased.” Titrud asked a number of English speakers if they would ever use this phrase in addressing their children and none of them would. It reflects Greek structure but is awkward English. The form, which was natural in the 1st century, does not provide equivalent impact or significance in our context.

In Genesis 4:1 the ESV has “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” In a discussion with teenagers, Titrud discovered that their understanding of this phrase was not in terms of sexual intimacy (its primary meaning), but in terms of familiarity in relationship. One teenager “said that since Adam was married to Eve, he of course knew her. The second one said that since Eve was taken from Adam’s rib, Adam of course knew himself. The third one said that it took him a while to really get to know her and accept her – to understand her.” This distortion occurred because the teenagers read the verse according to vernacular English, rather than recognizing the unique way the ESV uses English to reflect the constructs of the original language.

Psalm 1:1 reads: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners.” The latter phrase, “stand in the way of sinners,” if read according to modern English idiom, is a blessing on those who do not hinder sinners from committing crimes. The intent of the text is to pronounce a blessing on those who refuse to do evil.¹

As mentioned in the introductory article on the two translation styles, the primary weakness of formal translations is that comprehending the meaning of the text requires a background education beyond the common day-to-day use of the reader’s language. The reader is expected to determine the correct meaning of the translated text based on comprehension of the original text. Unfortunately, few readers of the Bible have appropriate understanding of the background and context of the original text that allows them to adequately interpret the meaning. Even those with some training in exegesis and the original languages are at a disadvantage, because their limited perspective can lead them astray. We do not live in the same culture as the authors and original audience and so we do not approach the text with the same background information and assumptions. The saving grace is that there are commentaries and other Bible study guides prepared by scholars that provide the broader perspective and support required for a correct interpretation.

For example, consider Luke 1:46, 47 in which Mary says,

Soul … Spirit

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my savior.” (NRSV)

As a literal translation, these lines in the NRSV reflect the poetic structure and words of the original language, but not in a way common to the English vernacular. The reader with background understanding will recognize the parallel structure and the likelihood that Mary is using two separate words – soul and spirit – for one expression of praise from her center of emotion. A natural reading of the translation by one unfamiliar with the poetic style could be that she is speaking of two separate experiences and aspects of her being.2 Understanding of this verse is obtained, not by reading the translated text at face value in the vernacular English, but by going behind the translated text and interpreting according to the way the original writing functions. In contrast, a meaning-based translation will provide a straightforward interpretation by using vernacular English, e.g., “…how I praise the Lord. How I rejoice in God my Savior” (NLT).

Those who insist that literal translations are superior probably do the greatest damage to people incapable of going behind the translated text to discover the meaning of the original manuscripts. For this vast majority of believers, the literal translation in their hands is often not understood, or worse they may misread the text. Even in the best-case scenario, readers are dependent upon others to provide interpretation. Because many passages are difficult to understand, the reader may quickly become discouraged or allow the comfort of familiar words to be a substitute for comprehension. Unfortunately, literal translations can convince readers that a lack of clarity in Bible reading is the norm.

b. Why Literal translations often lack clarity

But is it really true that literal translations often fail to communicate the meaning? Since every word is “breathed out” by God, should not a word for word translation that uses synonyms between languages be both necessary and sufficient to communicate the meaning?³ Although this assumption is often used to support the theory that literal translations are superior, it is based on misunderstandings concerning the nature of language.

“cat” + “hat” + “the” + “in” ≠ “the cat in the hat”

First, the meaning of a text does not reside solely in the words themselves, but in the way the words relate to each other to form ideas or thoughts. That is, in communication, the meaning of the sentence is not determined from the sum of the meanings of individual words, but by the relationship of the words to each other. For example, the meanings of the words “cat,” “hat,” “the,” and “in” considered individually do not mean the same as “the cat in the hat.” Because words do not relate in the same way in different languages, a simple word for word translation often fails to communicate the meaning.

Second, it is not true that there are equivalent synonyms between languages. No two words in any language are entirely synonymous in meaning but have their own unique range of nuance and emotion that has been shaped by history and environment. For example, the sentence “the cat in the hat” will evoke a far different image among those familiar with Dr. Seuss than among those who have not had the pleasure of reading his books.

Third, not only do words relate differently in different languages, but very often information crucial to the meaning is kept implicit because of a common understanding between author and audience. As a result, readers of literal versions must rely heavily on material external to the text in order for communication to occur. A literal translation of the sentence “He turned our place upside down like the cat in the hat,” into the Sindhi language would require considerable explanation before the average Sindhi reader would understand the allusion.

To provide a biblical illustration of the above three points, consider the description of Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen 10:9, NRSV). This literal translation has provided a word for word representation of the original with the words “before the LORD.” Each word has meaning, but because the relationship between the words is different than in the original Hebrew, the meaning represented by this English translation is hidden; it is not obvious what it means for a person to be a mighty hunter “before the LORD.” The sum of the words do not equate with the meaning of the original.

Second, the word “LORD” is capitalized to indicate a non-vernacular stylized representation of the Hebrew name for God, “YHWH” (another stylized representation!). This is necessary because there is no equivalent for this Hebrew name of God in English. As a result, a descriptive word (lord = master) is capitalized to communicate a meaning that is not inherent in the word “lord” itself.

Third, it is the implicit information in the original setting that provides the meaning of the phrase, which is lacking in the NRSV’s literal translation. For the Hebrews, God is the ultimate point of reference and in order to express totality the biblical authors would at times refer to God. In this verse the likely meaning is “Nimrod was the mightiest hunter in all of God’s creation” (from Sindhi translation), or “in God’s sight” (NLT).

Despite this weakness, “word for word” versions often do provide a translation in which the vernacular understanding of the target language naturally carries the same meaning as the original text. Even though the intent is to point back to the original text, the receptor text in such cases also provides an equivalent meaning for the reader. Unfortunately, there are usually no signals in the text that allow the reader to know when the meaning is being communicated according to vernacular usage, and when it is not. This can result in frustration and confusion on the part of the reader when the wording does not adequately communicate.

Weaknesses of meaning-based translations

a. Lack of correspondence to form

Meaning-based versions do the work of interpretation for the reader by presenting the meaning of the original text in the vernacular language of the receptor audience. The readers are expected to gain an understanding directly from the translated text according to the way words are used in their language, not as symbols pointing back to potential meaning residing in the original text. Based on substantial scholarship and critical translation checking, the meaning of the original – the inspired message – is presented in structures natural to the reader; the meaning resides in the translated text. This consistency in the intent of meaning-based versions is helpful to readers because they do not have to wonder if a particular passage is to be understood as written or if there is background information that needs to be brought to the text.

However, as is the nature of translation, this strength has a corresponding weakness. Meaning-based translations sacrifice the representation of the form of the original in order to present the meaning in understandable ways. For example, the range of meaning of any word in one language does not directly correspond with the range of meaning of a word in another language. Because any word in the original language has a range of nuances and meanings depending on the context, a concern for communication of meaning requires the use of a variety of terms in the target language that are suitable to those contexts. So while they provide a better understanding of individual sentences or clauses, meaning-based translations do not reveal to the reader the structure or intentional word choices of the original language. The sentence provided above, “He turned our place upside down like the cat in the hat,” in a meaning-based translation would likely use a simile familiar to the audience, or ignore the reference to “the cat in the hat” as secondary to the meaning.

It is usually not possible to follow the theological development of a specific Greek term in Paul’s writings because a meaning-based translation will used a variety words depending on the context to provide clarity for the reader. For instance, Paul uses a pair of terms, pneuma and sarx (“spirit” and “flesh” – NRSV), a number of times in his letters. A literal translation will attempt to use the same English words in each case to assist the reader in recognizing the connection between the passages. In contrast, the NIV “construes sarx as ‘sinful nature’ in Rom 8, and sarkinos as ‘worldly’ in 1 Cor 3, with the result that the reader of this translation is not aware that in the original the same root form was employed…. [This translation choice] makes it more difficult to compare individual passages with parallel passages elsewhere.”⁴

b. Potential for Mistranslation

There are two other weaknesses to meaning-based translations that are more disconcerting. First, while meaning-based versions are more intentional than literal versions to present the meaning clearly according to receptor language usage, this increases the potential for mistranslation. “Since the translator is ‘freer’ from the grammatical forms of the original language he [sic] is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the [meaning-based] translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are [literal] translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong.”5 The primary complaint of those who disparage meaning-based versions is that they disagree with the meaning presented in certain passages. In such cases formal translations are usually obscure or encompass a number of possible interpretations.

In 1 Tim 6:17 the ESV translates “God… richly provides us with everything to enjoy.” By not clarifying the word “everything,” a potential misinterpretation is that we are to enjoy everything, even those things that bring discomfort or hurt. In order to mitigate this the CEV translates, “God… is rich and blesses us with everything we need to enjoy life.” While a correct aspect of the meaning, this limits God’s bounty to our needs, as Grudem points out, “[We] can freely enjoy the abundant diversity of God’s excellent creation,”6 which encompasses far more than what we need. While it would be going too far to call the CEV rendering a “mistranslation,” it nonetheless appears to have limited the meaning more severely than warranted in its attempt to avoid the lack of clarity evident in the (literal) ESV.

By translating Mt. 5:3 as “those people who depend only on [God],” the CEV may have mistranslated the phrase if this is not what it means (footnote: I think the TEV’s “who know they are spiritually poor” captures the essence better, but with a lesser degree of clarity). In contrast, the NRSV (a literal oriented version) with “poor in spirit” provides English synonyms and equivalent structures without clarifying the meaning. The NRSV cannot be accused of mistranslating, although to achieve this it chooses to under translate and therefore, for most people, fails to communicate because of the vast number of potential meanings. If the CEV is correct, then it not only provides the reader with the inspired message, but it also prevents the reader from coming to a wrong understanding, a very real possibility with the NRSV. At the same time, because clarity requires a narrowing of possible meanings, the danger of mistranslation remains a distinct possibility for meaning-based translations.

c. Inability to include all the possible nuances

The other major weakness of meaning-based translations, closely related to the previous, is that the full nuance of the original text is seldom, if ever, maintained. Whenever communication in translation occurs, it occurs within a new context and therefore the fullness and impact of the original context cannot be maintained. Meaning-based translations use the vernacular of the receptor audience; the meaning is determined by the context and conventions of the target people group. Elements of the original context that provided meaning for the original readers are unavoidably neglected.

In reference to the above mentioned verse, Gen 10:9, the sentence, “[Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the LORD” (NRSV) by virtue of its obscurity, can be understood as including all the intended nuance of the original text. To provide clarity of meaning, meaning-based translations narrow the nuance to one possible image. For example, one meaning-based version has “Nimrod was the mightiest hunter in the whole world” (one edition of the NLT). While providing the probable meaning, it neglects the context of the Hebrew worldview with its reference to God. The translation “Nimrod was a mighty hunter in God’s sight” (NLT) maintains a sense of the Hebrew worldview but loses the superlative force – Nimrod as the mightiest hunter. Furthermore, these translations exclude other possible interpretations, such as the TEV, “whose strength came from the LORD.”

By virtue of providing a phrase that cannot be understood without bringing outside information to the text, the original nuance is not excluded from the translated text in literal translations, but it is not necessarily communicated by the text. Meaning-based translations, of necessity, exclude some of the nuance in order to bring clarity to the text. The translator has the choice between communicating the meaning while losing some of the surrounding nuance (meaning-based), or maintaining the full potential of possible meanings but without communicating a clear sense of the meaning (formal).

Together, greater confidence and comprehension

Though individually limited, together literal and meaning-based translations provide readers with greater confidence that they have grasped the intended meaning of the original text. Exclusive use of a literal version makes it difficult for the reader to understand the message. Exclusive use of one meaning-based translation will prevent the reader from exposure to other possible nuances of the original text. Excellent scholarship lies behind both literal and meaning-based versions so that we can read them with confidence and compare them in order to obtain a deeper appreciation of the message. Literal translations ensure that we maintain a tie to the original text as the standard for the meaning, while meaning-based translations provide clarity and comprehension.

A future article will explore the theological concerns and assumptions that lie behind the claim of some that literal translations are superior to meaning-based translations.

If you would like to contact Mark, please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 These examples are taken from Kermit Titrud’s article at www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/files/titrud.doc accessed August 08.
• 2 In his article, “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God” in Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Wheaton, Il.: Crossway Books, 2005, 19-56) Wayne Grudem proposes a distinction of meaning between the two lines (p. 39), but does not provide any guidance towards determining that distinction.
• 3 Wayne Grudem states, “the Bible repeatedly claims that every one of its words (in the original languages) is a word spoken to us by God, and is therefore of utmost importance, and … this fact provides strong argument in favour of “essentially literal” (or “word-for-word”) translations….” Ibid. p. 19.
• 4 T. David Gordon, “Translation Theory” 1985, at http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html accessed July 4, 2008
• 5 ibid.
• 6 Grudem. p. 45.

With regard to the “meaningful,” we are always trying to make sense of our world. Hopelessness, which is what we seek to avoid, is the antithesis of the “meaningful” and happens when the world does not make sense. Children from dysfunctional families, for example, are more prone to be careless of themselves and others – smoking, dangerous activities, lack of respect for boundaries, etc. Their world is not making sense and much of what they do is a cry of despair of the senselessness of it all. They deliberately do what they have been warned against, partly in reaction to the pain that they experience from those aspects of society considered to be places of security and meaning. Ultimately, the lack of meaning leads to suicide, as in the case of the existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre.

the issue for evangelism is no longer (if it ever was) about finding the right delivery system

Tied to this, and which is also a matter of universal human concern, is the search for and desire to experience and center our lives on “good.” We desire and search for that which is conducive to human flourishing. This corresponds with Jesus’ view of humanity. He had pity on the crowds because they were like sheep without a shepherd. They were in need of what is good and they were seeking for it, but they were looking in the wrong places.

what all of us as human beings are seeking are matters of ultimate concern

In other words, what all of us as human beings are seeking are matters of ultimate concern, the questions of human existence: What should I do? Why are we here? What may I hope?

Implications for our post-Christian Environment
Common approaches to evangelism assume that we as Christians have the answers to these questions and look for “delivery systems” whereby these answers can be provided. Church services, evangelistic meetings, tracts, etc., are all designed with the desire to deliver the Christian message. These approaches do work for some, but, if statistics Canada is correct, not for the majority of Canadians.

We live in a post-Christian environment. What this means is that the majority of people have heard the message. If you were to ask the average person on the street: “Do you know that Christians believe that Jesus died and rose again and that by trusting in him they can have their sins forgiven?” the answer would most likely be “yes.” Even if their understanding is only a parody of the true message, the average person hears these presentations through a pre-understanding and prejudice against the message. The result is the affirmation of the lack of relevance of the gospel to their lives. What this means is that the issue for evangelism is no longer (if it ever was) about finding the right delivery system. Instead the need for our society are forums in which people are engaged in discussion about the questions of ultimate concern. It is within such forums that the relevance of the gospel of Jesus can be considered.

Grassroots Conversations: The SISI system
The SISI system is an attempt to provide support for those who wish to engage people in conversation on a significant level so that the various answers to these questions can be addressed. Rather than a “delivery system” whereby the gospel message can be communicated, the goal is to learn how to create opportunities to discuss the deeper meanings of life. In these settings of dialogue or conversation all parties are given room to express their values and beliefs concerning how life “works.” Within such an environment Christians have opportunity to act as “witness” to the experiences of their lives and express the “hope that is within them.”

The SISI system is a process of discovery and response, rather than the common evangelistic approach of message and response. The common evangelistic approach is to provide a version of the gospel message and then ask for a response. The response may be in the form of a choice to accept or reject (i.e., invitation at an evangelistic meeting or by a TV evangelist), or it may be in the form of comment or reaction (i.e., the approach of Alpha and Discovering Christianity). In common evangelistic approaches it is the Christian story that serves as the context for discussion. Such approaches are not only good, but necessary and many people have come to Christ through these efforts.

However, the SISI system works from the other direction. It does not begin with the Christian story, but with the story of the conversation partner. It is missional in its approach by beginning where others live and think. Missionaries spend much of their time getting to know the people they are living among so they can understand the world from their perspective. They then work from within that worldview to discuss how Jesus can speak to those people in relevant and transforming ways. While they must speak from the experience of Jesus in their own lives, the starting point of conversation is the concerns and perspectives of the insiders to that context. The missionary’s job is to do the work of explaining how life in Jesus is applicable within the new setting. The insiders then respond and the ensuing dialogue becomes a process of discovering the ways life can be meaningful and good – the ultimate concerns of humanity. If, as we believe, the gospel message is the means by which this can be obtained, then the conversation will take seriously the person of Jesus Christ – at least for some participants.

Moving Deeper in the Onion Model of Culture
If we consider the “onion model of culture,” (1) significant conversations are those that move beyond the material and behavior levels (first two rings) to consider values, beliefs and worldview. That is, the goal is to move beyond comments about our environment (e.g., weather, sports) and behavior (e.g., our preferences for schools, holidays, church) to consider values (e.g., appropriate behavior, sexual morality), beliefs (e.g., value of human life, purpose of sex) and worldview (e.g., overall structure or “story” that provides ultimate meaning to life, God, the cross of Christ).

Jesus Shines in “Round Table” Conversation
The SISI system is based on the same principles that guided the approach of E. Stanley Jones, a missionary in India during the time of Gandhi. He established “round table discussions” to which Muslim, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians were invited. They did not argue the logic of their particular religious system, rather they explained how the ultimate concerns of life were experienced through their personal faith experience. People were encouraged to explain how their faith made their lives meaningful and good. E. Stanley Jones used the “room” created by these discussions to speak of how Jesus gave meaning and goodness in his life.

His conclusion from these discussions was that we need to hear the struggles of others as they search for meaning and goodness in their lives. When such a conversation occurs about the significant issues in life – values, beliefs and worldview – then we have opportunity to speak of Jesus who is at the center of our search – and in any environment, Jesus shines.

_______________
• (1) Adapted from SCA International MissionPrep training Manual (unpublished), 2007. p. 18.

The Bible is God’s revelation of his will to humanity given within a cultural context that is very different from our situation today.  Although the Bible remains God’s revelation of his will for us, it was originally written to people whose language, culture and worldview greatly contrasts with ours.  Thus, the more the values, beliefs and situation of the original audience are understood by today’s reader, the better the meaning of the divine message can be comprehended.  Similarly, the more we comprehend our own culture and society, the better equipped we are to understand how the biblical revelation can be expressed and applied in our context.

The implications of this reality are profound for the Bible translator and the cross-cultural worker as well as for all those who want to understand the relevance of God’s word for them.  We cannot understand and appreciate the way the Bible relates to us without first recognizing that God spoke his message to people both through and because of their situation.  To the degree our modern context is similar to the context of original audience, the original message will have direct relevance for us.  However, differences between the ancient and modern cultures require us to adopt a two step process of interpretation.  First, we must understand the message through the original cultural perspective and second, we must consider how that revelation can be expressed relevantly for us today.

The differences between biblical cultures and our western context can easily be underestimated by the modern reader resulting in the misinterpretation of scripture. For example, the egalitarian values of our western culture make it hard for us to grapple with the pervasive patriarchal values and assumptions that lie behind the Pentateuch.

The patriarchal nature of the nation of Israel and the cultures of that time is especially evident in Deu. 23:1-10, which declares that only circumcised males may belong to the “congregation” or “assembly” of the LORD.  The word used in this passage is the same word used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the nation of Israel.  The struggle for the egalitarian modern reader comes because it is evident that only adult males were considered members of the LORD’s congregation, that is, members of the nation of Israel.  When the congregation or assembly is mentioned in other passages, it is assumed by the modern reader that the whole community consisting of men, women and children is being referred to.  However, in a patriarchal setting it is only the adult males who constitute the essence and identity of the community.

Most English translations seem inadequate in their translations of the Deu. passage since they often imply that the “congregation” is a special group within the nation, rather than the nation itself. However, the passage actually refers to the whole nation of Israel focusing on the central religious identity of belonging to the LORD.  This was a privilege reserved solely for the circumcised adult male. All others were dependent on the relationship with an adult male member in order to survive and find their identity and meaning of life within that community.  This is the reason for the ongoing concern in the Old Testament for widows, orphans and the resident alien. The book of Ruth can scarcely be understood without a grasp of this concept.

The modern reader can easily become confused or repulsed by the patriarchal values of that time and thereby miss the revelation that God offers. But the solution to this clash with modern values comes by recognizing that God consistently revealed his nature and will to people in a way that made sense to them within their context.  The point of the passage for us today is not to encourage patriarchal values and assumptions; these are not values that we espouse.  Rather we need to grab hold of the truth relevant in our setting that we are called to holiness and purity as we keep the LORD at the center of our lives and purposes.  For our context it is not just circumcised adult males of one people group, but men and women of all nations who are invited to be full members of the congregation of the LORD.

From an anthropological perspective, which is the primary way the term is used in missiology, culture refers to the relationship that the members of a particular ethnic group have with their environment and each other.  This includes all aspects of life that provide meaning for that people group such as legends, laws, priorities, structures (material, organizational or conceptual), customs and artifacts.  Worldview, on the other hand, refers to the conceptual framework or beliefs about reality from which cultural items gain their significance. 

There are universals common to all cultures (although there is no agreed upon list of these universals), but it is the differences between cultures that provide cultural identity and are the cause of much perplexity and conflict between people groups.  This is the reason why the politically correct program of multiculturalism in Canada is so difficult.  As a philosophy of accommodation so that cultures can co-exist while maintaining their separate identities, multiculturalism is predicated upon an assumption that there are sufficient agreed upon commonalities for such a project to succeed.  However, not only are there disagreements about the identification of these commonalities, but even when they are identified at a theoretical level, the practical outworking of these values is elusive.  For example, western “universals” such as “free speech,” “equal rights,” and the “rule of law” are understood and prioritized in fundamentally different ways in other parts of the world.

As a humorous illustration of how cultures conceptualize reality in different ways, consider the following imaginary sports analogy:

The country is Canada.  The city, Hockeytown – a city in which only one sport, hockey, has ever been played.  It is the only sport that has ever been imagined by the residents.  To them hockey is not just one of many sports, but is what defines sport.  Bobb Yorr has just returned from a visit to another city in which he was introduced to the sport of Tennis.  Grett Ski has never been out of his city and so, for him, “sports” is defined by ice rinks, hockey sticks and hockey nets.

• Grett: Hey, Bobb, long time no see!  What have you been up to?
• Bobb: I’ve just got back and I’ve discovered another sport.
• Grett: Another sport?  What do you mean – another way to play hockey?
• Bobb: Um, well it’s a sport like hockey is a sport, but totally different.
• Grett: How can it be like hockey and totally different.  That doesn’t make sense.  Do the teams line up differently or something?
• Bobb: Well there are only 2 players.
• Grett: What! Only two players on the whole team? How do they take shifts?
• Bobb: No, only two people in the game, one player on each team and they play the whole game.
• Grett: No way! Who do they pass to?
• Bobb: Well, they pass to each other.
• Grett: That’s just dumb, that’s not hockey at all.
• Bobb: No it’s called Tennis
• Grett: Why is it called Tennis? It should be called Two-is if you’ve only got two players.
• Bobb: Uh… I don’t know.
• Grett: So you got two guys in the middle of the ice passing a puck back and forth. Sounds boring.
• Bobb: No, they use a ball and they bounce it with their sticks over the net.
• Grett: How do they score if they keep wacking it over the net?  Can’t they get it in the net?
• Bobb: They don’t want to get it into the net or the other player gets points.
• Grett: So when one player scores the other player gets the point.  They might as well shoot it into their own net then and get an own goal!
• Bobb: But there is only one net and it is right in the middle of the court.
• Grett: What’s a court?
• Bobb: Well, it’s like a rink, but with no ice.
• Grett: What! That’ll wreck their skates!  Wait, don’t tell me – I bet these guys can’t even skate, can they.
• Bobb: They don’t want to.
• Grett: So you’ve discovered a new game like hockey where two guys who can’t skate pass a ball back and forth with their sticks trying hard not to score in the one hockey net that they have put in the middle of the rink.
• Bobb: Well, sort of…
• Grett: You’ve been drinking, haven’t you?  How long does this game last?
• Bobb: It depends.  Different times.
• Grett: Why? Nobody has a clock in that city?
• Bobb: No, no they play until one person wins 6 games and that’s a set and then when someone has 3 sets they win the match.
• Grett: How do you get a set without a match?  If it doesn’t match, how is it a set?  You’re just talking nonsense.  I mean the winner would have to win a minimum of, um, let’s see, 3 carry the 5… 18 games.  He’d be exhausted.  Unless the games are really short.
• Bobb: They are.
• Grett: Just one goal per game?
• Bobb: No, every time someone misses the other person gets some points, but it always changes.
• Grett: HA! Caught you.  You just contradicted yourself.
• Bobb: What do you mean?
• Grett: You said when a person scored into the net the other person got a point, but now you are saying when a person misses, the other person gets a point.  So you are just putting me on.
• Bobb: No, because when you shoot the ball in the net, that counts as a miss.
• Grett: When they score, they miss. That’s just crazy talk.
• Bobb: No, seriously. The first time someone misses the other person gets 15 points and it’s called 15 love.
• Grett: One mistake and the other person gets 15 goals.
• Bobb: yeah
• Grett: And then they start talking about love.
• Bobb: That’s how they keep score.
• Grett: So when they drop their gloves, it’s not fighting that they have in mind.
• Bobb: That’s not part of the game.
• Grett:  Somebody has been messing with your mind. It’s about time you came home and left that sissy stuff behind.  Come and play a man’s game.

Lesson: Culture is not about playing the same game with different terminology as if a word in one culture means exactly the same thing as a word in another.  Not only that, but the terminology of another culture refers to concepts that are often fundamentally different from our way of thinking.  Culture must be learned by living in another context and seeking to understand how other people think, value and view the world.  Only when we understand how the particular culture of a people group facilitates successful interaction with their environment, can we make sense of their terminology, rules and perspectives.  Rather than trying to understand their worldview through the rules and values of the way we relate to our environment, we enter into a whole new way of experiencing life.

Hudson Taylor was a pioneer missionary to China who recognized the need to immerse himself in the Chinese culture in order to relate the gospel to the people in ways that made sense to his audience.  He learned their language, wore his hair in a pigtail, wore their clothes and, in general, lived his as close to their lifestyle as possible.  According to some of his European colleagues, this was inappropriate.  Because the Bible had been in their culture for so many centuries, they reasoned, their cultural values and norms were the true expressions of Christian life and universal for all cultures.  Hudson Taylor disagreed.  Rather than requiring people to become like him, he deliberately sought to become like them.  Rather than “bringing people in” to meet Christ, his goal was to bring Christ into their lives.  Such thinking represents the heart of the missional church.

When Karen and I lived in Pakistan¹ we worshipped with the Baptist church located across the road from our residence.  I had a sincere young Muslim ask to attend the worship service, so I took him with me.  Afterwards I was taken aside by an elder and told that this was inappropriate: the young man was not a Christian, he was not baptized, he didn’t belong.  Some time later the man was baptized, but not in that church.  I took him again to a worship service in the church and the same elder took me aside once more.  I explained that the young man was now baptized.  The elder asked, "What is his name? Where does he live?" I told him the man’s name and that he lived with his father. The elder responded by explaining that until the man changes his name to a Christian name, and until he leaves his Muslim community and joins the Christian community, he cannot attend the church. 

The point here is not to criticize the elder for this attitude because there are complex cultural issues that need to be understood. However, what is pertinent is the "bring them in and make them like us" mentality, an inward focus that is also prevalent in many Canadian churches. We are good at sending missionaries, we are good at bringing people into our meetings (very few churches would deny Muslims entry), but there is often a lack of conviction that we are a people who have "been sent" by Jesus to make the gospel relevant to others where they live.  When churches talk of “outreach” a primary goal is usually to bring them in and assimilate them into church life. In contrast, we had gone to Pakistan with an outward focus. We attempted to learn what it means to live in a relevant Christ-like way in their culture, from the standpoint of their worldview, rather than conforming them to our culture and worldview.

There are two ways to be a church involved in God’s mission to the world:

1. Bring them in so they can assimilate (communal orientation) OR

2. Appreciate and interact with people in their context so they can experience the way Jesus relates to them where they live (missional orientation).

Jesus’ Incarnation is the basis for Missional Orientation

Jesus’ incarnation, “God with us,” is the “theological prism through which we view our entire missional task in the world”².  In his high priestly prayer Jesus said, “As you (God) sent me into the world, so I send them (disciples) into the world” (Jn 17:18).  Jesus came to make a difference in people’s lives by becoming like them.  We are also called to be like Jesus and make a difference in people’s lives.  Like Jesus this requires the maintenance of a paradox: becoming like others in order to be a transforming catalyst.  Gospel transformation occurs through the cultural values and perspectives of a people group rather than by insisting on our own cultural norms.  The missional church follows Jesus’ method of relating the gospel message to people’s lives within their context.

This biblical perspective of how God interacts with humanity contrasts sharply with Islamic theology. In Islam there is no accommodation of God towards humanity.  God never becomes immanent with people, as in the incarnation.  He is immovably transcendent.  Thus, in their view of scripture, the Koran was dictated in heaven and handed down to the prophet.  There is no human hand or culture involved in providing God’s revelation to humanity.  It remains transcendent and pure.  In contrast the biblical picture is of a God who speaks in and through human cultures, in and through human languages.  Unlike the Koran, the Bible can be translated into other languages and remain the authoritative word of God.  The ultimate accommodation to human frailty is found in the person Christ, the Word of Life seen with human eyes and touched with human hands (1 Jn 1:1). 

God became human within a particular context, for our sake.  Similarly, Jesus sends us, so that he can become Lord in many different contexts.  The New Testament does not provide a blueprint for a universal form of church for all cultures to which people must accommodate.  Rather the descriptions of church development and instruction reveal the missional understanding of the disciples who “worked out” the gospel message in their 1st century culture.  The function of the church (e.g., fellowship, worship, teaching) was fulfilled through the cultural patterns with which the apostles were familiar. Proponents of missional churches believe that they are called to do the same: to work out salvation in other contexts using those forms that best express the message.

The Incarnation of the Gospel not the Messenger

It is important to recognize that the incarnational implications of the missional orientation do not require that the messenger literally become a full member of another culture, but that they work towards the gospel becoming an integral expression of another setting.  While missionaries in Pakistan, we did not become Pakistani.  That was impossible and, because of our own cultural values and priorities, would have been inappropriate if we had attempted it.  When Paul spoke of becoming “like a Jew, to win the Jews” and becoming “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:19-22), he was not speaking incarnationally, but from a desire to accommodate his practices and priorities for the sake of the gospel.

Similarly, our goal was to relate to the Sindhi people in such a way that they would recognize the gospel not as an imported western religion, but as God speaking to and relating to their lives.  As foreigners, we understood and lived the gospel from within our cultural perspective because that is the means by which the gospel message is significant to us.  What was required was an introduction of the gospel expressed relevantly within their cultural perspective.  This involved a resolute investment in relationships with people and sensitivity to their context. We had to leave our “comfort zone” and learn to appreciate a very different perspective on life and relationships.  However, the goal was not our incarnation into their reality, but the incarnation of the gospel of Christ. This is commonly referred to as a contextualization of the gospel message so that significance of the death and resurrection of Christ impacts both individual lives and the broader community in such a way that it is identified as integral to the culture.

The following article will provide a brief overview of how the missional concept has been developed by influential missiologists.

_______________
• (1) From 1985-1999 Karen and I lived with our family as FEBInternational missionaries in Pakistan.
• (2) M. Frost & A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 35.

I remember seeing an ad for a new translation of the Bible claiming to be the “most accurate translation” available today.  Although a good marketing tactic, it is less than honest because accuracy in Bible translation is relative to the underlying philosophy and goals of the translation.  Such a claim is similar to shooting an arrow and then painting a bulls-eye around it. Each version needs to be evaluated for faithfulness to the source text according to its stated purpose.  For example, to translate “Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen 10:9), may be “accurate” for a formal translation that seeks to reflect the Hebrew idiom, but it would be “inaccurate” for a receptor focused, meaning based translation.  In contrast, to translate “Nimrod, the mightiest hunter in the world,” may be “accurate” for a meaning based translation but would be “inaccurate” for a formal translation.  Both styles of translation are legitimate, but they cannot be contrasted on the basis of “accuracy”.  Rather they reveal different aspects of the original text.¹

Form verses Function

The Bible translation in the Sindhi language of Pakistan with which I am involved seeks to be a receptor oriented, meaning based translation, also referred to as “dynamic” or “functional” equivalence².  The goal is to provide a translation that a Sindhi with a minimum of grade six education can read and understand within a non-Christian cultural context.  This is accomplished by ensuring that the function of the text to communicate a message is represented in an equivalent manner in the Sindhi language.  Our goal is that the meaning, the impact, the emotion, and the purpose of the passage intended by the author is comprehended by the average Sindhi reader.  To accomplish this we replace the forms and structures of the original text with equivalent Sindhi forms and structures.

The problem with formal translations that attempt to maintain the metaphors, structures and grammatical distinctives of the original text is that the result can be obscure, awkward and misleading.  In contrast, a weakness in meaning based translations is that they often sacrifice the flavor of the original culture for the sake of clarity and naturalness in the receptor language.  In the example of Nimrod provided above, the meaning based translation has lost the underlying Hebrew assumption of God’s omnipresence as a frame of reference, for the sake of clarity in a more secular worldview.  Our Sindhi translation manages to provide for that element to a limited extent with the translation “Nimrod was the greatest hunter in all of God’s creation.”

All translations gain and lose some aspects of the original and translators must constantly make choices concerning the implicit and explicit information available within the original text.  Formal and meaning based translations simply lose and maintain different aspects according to their distinct translation goals.  Both styles of translation are important depending on the audience and the purpose. For readings in a church service or for devotional reading it would be better to use a meaning based translation because the goal is immediate understanding and engagement with the message.  However, for a Bible study both styles can be helpful resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of the text.

Meaning based contrasted with Formal in Amos 5:5

During my last visit to Pakistan we worked on Amos 5:5. The RSV (a formal translation) has:

But do not seek Bethel,

And do not enter into Gilgal

Or cross over to Beersheba;

For Gilgal shall surely go into exile,

And Bethel shall come to nought.

In contrast our Sindhi translation has:

Do not go to Bethel, Gilgal or Beersheba

Yes, Do not at all become followers after their worship places

Because surely their inhabitants will be taken into exile

And their cities destroyed.

The RSV follows the pattern of the Hebrew in

Poetry (chiastic structure for the city names – ABCBA, as well as using parallel lines),

Grammar (a variety of verbs to express one thought: “seek, enter, cross over”),

Connotation (cities rather than people going into exile), and

Idiom (the phrase, “Bethel shall come to nought” is a play on the Hebrew word “Bethel” meaning “God’s house” and the word “nought” referring to a deserted ruin, therefore has the impact of “going to the devil”, or being wiped out³. Unfortunately this idiom mistranslates in English and has the force of  “not successful”).

The RSV is a good resource for those doing Bible study and seeking to understand the Hebrew context, worldview and poetic depth.  However several misunderstandings are possible to the casual reader: Does the variety of verbs mean that the cities are to be treated differently? What is the problem with these cities that they should not be entered into (there is implicit information here that is not stated)? Why is there no punishment for Beersheba?

However, if the goal is immediate comprehension of the message, the meaning based Sindhi translation is much clearer because

1. It clarifies that the cities are treated the same (the parallel structure of the Hebrew poetry means that the verbs “seek” “enter” and “cross-over” are intended to have the same force).
2. It clarifies the point that these are places of worship and that is why they are displeasing to God.
3. It clarifies that the “exile” and “destruction” refers to the people of all three cities and not describing separate punishments for each city with Beersheba free from punishment.
4. It picks up on the emotion of the passage through emphatic words (“not at all”, “surely”) Mimicking the poetic form of the Hebrew would not have communicated the intensity of the emotion for the Sindhi reader.

The poetic structure of the Hebrew is lost in the Sindhi translation.  But what has been gained is a natural and clear representation of the meaning.  Translation is about gains and losses.  A meaning based translation maximizes the gains in the area of clarity and understanding for the receptor audience to the detriment of form.  A good formal translation maximizes gains by reflecting the forms of the source language, but at the expense of clarity.  Just like a good tool box will have a number of different screwdrivers to deal with a variety of contexts, so both formal and meaning based translations play a role to help us discover the meaning of God’s word.

_______________
• (1) See also Cross-Cultural Impact numbers 4 and 25 for other articles on translation issues.
• (2) “Dynamic Equivalence” is the old name for “functional equivalence”. The term “dynamic” had a number of problems associated with it and it was decided that “functional” better expressed the translation process.
• (3) p. 103.Waard, J. and Smalley, W. 1979. A Translator’s handbook on the Book of Amos. New York: UBS.

What would this worldview look like if Christ was Lord?

I remember the time a young believer brought a friend to me so that I could explain the gospel to him.  We were living among the Muslim Sindhi people of Pakistan working with FEBInternational.  The friend was illiterate and lived in a rural part of the Sindh province.  As I tried to talk to him about the gospel it quickly became clear that we could not communicate.  The problem was not language, but worldview. His understanding of life and reality was so far removed from mine that I was unable to bridge the gap in any significant way.  If the gospel is to penetrate his family and community, it will not come about by convincing him of a universal “Christian worldview.”  Such an approach would only be greeted with incomprehensible stares.  Instead, a believer must be found who is capable of entering that man’s reality and who can relate the gospel to him according to his worldview.

All societies, through the process of “making meaning” of their context, work out a view of the world that enables them to consistently and successfully deal with their environment.  The goal of the cross-cultural minister is not to convince people to change their worldview in conformity to a “Christian worldview,” but to bring the gospel into their reality in relevant and impacting ways so that Christ can be embraced as Savior and Lord. The question to ask is not “How can I convince them to accept the Christian worldview?” but “What would this worldview look like if Christ was Lord?”

The theological basis for this approach is found in God’s interaction with human beings and particularly in the incarnation.

Islamic vs Christian Theology

In Islamic theology there is no compromise of the character of God with a concept of God becoming human. God is “wholly other” and transcendent.  In Christian theology, the amazing message is not just that he “knows what we are made of; he remembers that we are dust” (Ps 103:14 TEV), but that he has joined us in our weakness through the incarnation.  That is, in order to transform us he first become like us.

The Bible can be translated.  The Koran cannot.  The latter is immovable and demands that human beings conform to its absolute state.  The Koran must be read and recited in Arabic.  On the other hand, the incarnation demonstrates the willingness of God to meet us within our setting, within our worldview.  God spoke to the prophets using their language and the concepts of their worldview; he described the world according to their perceptions.  Jesus lived the perfect human life within a particular cultural, historical and religious setting.  It is within that context that spiritual transformation occurred and the NT gives us a detailed look at how the gospel transformed people’s lives within that particular setting and worldview.  It is this willingness to conform to “those symbols which most profoundly inform our lives” ¹, that defines God’s interaction with humanity and Bible translation is founded upon the belief that God speaks to people within their own context.

In a similar way, the goal of missions is not to convince people to leave their worldview and embrace a universal “Christian worldview.” The approach that will build lasting transformation is one that presents Christ as Lord within worldviews.  Gospel transformation of the culture will then occur from the inside out.

Working within the Worldview

A common mistake of the novice cross-cultural minister is to confront people with a particular sin, such as polygamy or bribery or lying or wife beating, which is not viewed as sin by that culture.  Rather than making a transforming impact, the missionary is dismissed as being out of touch with reality.  Instead, by working within the worldview and addressing those issues that people acknowledge as sin, Jesus’ relevance to their lives can be demonstrated.  It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin (Jn 16:8).

Hiebert recounts Walter Trobisch’s conversation with a polygamous man who was denied communion in a local church, while his wives were allowed to belong because they only had one spouse:

“Wouldn’t you like to become a church member?”
“Pastor, don’t lead me into temptation! How can I become a church member, if it means to disobey Christ? Christ forbade divorce, but not polygamy.  The church forbids polygamy but demands divorce.  How can I become a church member, if I want to be a Christian?  For me there is only one way, to be a Christian without the church.”
“Have you ever talked to your pastor about that?”
“He does not dare to talk to me, because he knows as well as I do that some of his elders have a second wife secretly.  The only difference between them and me is that I am honest and they are hypocrites.”²

The imported teaching of the sin of polygamy, using the structure of the church to enforce conformity, only served to promote hypocrisy.  The worldview of those people accepted polygamy as a part of life and this perspective was not changed through the demands of the church.  It would be far better to allow the people to define those sins as the Spirit speaks to them and address those sins with the gospel of Christ, than to insist that people conform outwardly to a particular Christian standard.

Changing our thinking

In the book Ministering Cross Culturally, Lingenfelter recounts his attempts to organize and categorize creation myths of the Yapese culture.  He found that the different clans had differing accounts and stories and he could not reconcile them with each other.  The Yapese could not understand his attempt to categorize the stories and said, “Why do you insist on putting these things together? They are completely different!”  Lingenfelter goes on to explain his motivation:

My problem in interviewing the Yapese was that my nature and my training encouraged me to line everything up in rows.  I want to have everything sorted, systematically organized, and fitting into its proper place.  I like to divide everything into constituent parts and then resort them into a clear pattern.  American culture generally rewards this type of thinking.³

Lingenfelter realized that he was evaluating the Yapese culture according to an external standard and submitting their beliefs and values to a foreign perspective.  However the goal of the cross-cultural minister is not to evaluate another worldview according to a universal “Christian Worldview” or external standard, but to enter into that worldview and understand how their beliefs and values serve that community in its relationship with its context.  Only then can the gospel be presented in a manner that resonates with those concepts and assumptions that are accepted representations of the world. Even as Jesus became like us in order to transform us, so we must work according to the constraints of the other worldview’s perception of reality and present Christ as the one who brings healing and salvation from sin within their worldview.

_______________
• (1) Wink, W. 1973. The Bible in Human Transformation, Philadelphia: Fortress press. p. 64.
• (2) quoted in Hiebert, P. 1985. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker. p. 179.
• (3) Lingenfelter, S.G. and Mayers, M.K. 2003. Ministering Cross-culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker