Right Reason

Every now and then when I’m looking at a particular passage of Scripture I’ll come across a verse, scratch my head and think, “what were they thinking”? I don’t mean the author, I mean those responsible for the translation. Now I’m not the world’s greatest Hebrew or Greek scholar by any means, so I’m not talking about translations where the actual meaning is debatable, depending on subtleties that are frankly beyond my knowledge or abilities. I’m thinking of the kinds of translational… well, blunders (or so it seems to me) that are frankly surprising. So I thought – Why not start a blog series on verses like that, and ask for input from the readers?

That’s what I decided to do, and this is the first such blog. This time I have the NIV (among others) in my sights because of the way that they translated Romans 12:1. In Greek, the verse reads:

Parakalo oun hemas, adelphoi, dia ton oiktirmon tou theou parastesai ta somata humon thusian zosan hagian euareston to theo, ten logiken latreian humon.

I’ve highlighted the part that I want to draw your attention to. The verse is rather literally translated by the King James Version as follows: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

That phrase “reasonable service” could have been translated a number of ways. It’s translated from the Greek phrase logikon latreian. The term logikos basically means logical. Not necessarily in a strict mathematical sense, mind you, but of course it includes that. It means logical, rational, or perhaps reasonable. In context it indicates that giving ourselves wholly to God as living sacrifices is the sensible, reasonable or logical thing to do (Young’s literal translation says “your intelligent service”). In verse 3 the writer gives his reason for saying this, starting his sentence off with an exaplanatory conjunction “for…” (the greek word gar): “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” Given who God is, and given that we shouldn’t think more highly of ourselves than we really are, and given God’s mercy towards us, the only sensible thing we can do in response is to give ourselves completely to God.

In the year 1900 the American Standard Version of the New Testament was published (followed by the Old Testament in 1901). This new translation contained an idiosyncrasy that I cannot find any example of in the nineteenth century or earlier. It’s an idiosyncrasy that is no longer idiosyncratic, because from initially only one version, it has spread to quite a few translations. Here’s that post-1900 innovation, represented in various translations. You can see how over the years that innovation has itself sprouted others that were based on it:

1900, American Standard Version: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service.”

1958, Amplified Bible: “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, {and} beg of you in view of [all] the mercies of God, to make a decisive dedication of your bodies [presenting all your members and faculties] as a living sacrifice, holy (devoted, consecrated) and well pleasing to God, which is your reasonable (rational, intelligent) service {and} spiritual worship.”

1973, New International Version: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.”

1989, New Revised Standard Version: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

1991, New Century Version: “So brothers and sisters, since God has shown us great mercy, I beg you to offer your lives as a living sacrifice to him. Your offering must be only for God and pleasing to him, which is the spiritual way for you to worship.”

2001, English Standard Version, “?I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

How did “your reasonable service” evolve into “the spiritual way for you to worship”? Here’s my question: Why did people start, in the twentieth century, to translated logokos as “spiritual” here in Romans 12 – but for some reason, only in Romans 12?

What were they thinking when they did this? Are they all just parroting the American Standard Version? Can anyone versed in New Testament Greek offer a justification of this?

Does it even make sense to try to separate what Jesus did from what he taught?

At some point in your life you’ve probably heard a sentiment like this expressed by people who don’t regard themselves as Christians at all: “Well I’m not really into the whole religion thing, but you’ve got to respect the teaching of Jesus. What a good man!” This nasty business of dying for sins, holiness, judgement, eternity – forget all that, but the message of Jesus is just peachy. “Liberal” or “progressive” spin-offs of Christianity are in on the game as well. Usually in these circles, however, the attitude is coupled with a fictional account of what Jesus actually taught. Usually his message of forgiveness, impartiality, personal purity, God’s openness to all sinners who repent, humility, becomes transformed into an alternative Gospel of left leaning policy, denunciation of traditional morality and the tolerance of all lifestyles. But setting that aside, the idea is still one that elevates the moral and social teaching of Jesus over the theological and eschatological importance of his mission in dying for sin and rising from the dead (the latter is often denied altogether in such circles).

The most recent example of this is in New Zealand is the ever-struggling-for-but-not-quite-achieving-relevance Saint Matthew in the city Anglican parish, with this wee gem, erected right on time for Easter:

The (apparent) message is that we shouldn’t let the events of Easter, the death and resurrection of Jesus, distract us from the actual message of the Gospel. This is a terrible garbling of New Testament Theology in general, and the teaching of Jesus in particular. You cannot understand Jesus’ teaching and also separate it from his mission in his death and resurrection, because so much of his teaching depends crucially on that very mission being accomplished.

The Gospels record Jesus telling his disciples on more than one occasion that he was going to be killed and then rise again (e.g. Matt 12:40, Mark 8:31, Mark 10:34, John 2:19-22). It was hardly an unlucky twist that would leave Jesus thinking that maybe people might forget the actual reason that he came. But more importantly, it was in his death and resurrection that Jesus made the accomplishment of his mission possible. In making the resurrection of the dead a possibility for those who trust in him a reality, Jesus was doing the very thing he came to do: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:38-40).

In calling people to live a new way – in forgiveness, impartiality, in liberation from bondage to sin, Jesus is calling people to live in light of the kingdom of God having come into the world in himself. We should live in light of eternity – an eternity that is made possible because Jesus has fulfilled his mission of redemption, that very mission now belittled on a billboard. If you take that away – take away Jesus’ self-declared reason for coming into this world at all, then you end up with a charlatan. You end up with someone who tells us how to live, who promises much, and ultimately fails.

For the early Christians (you know, the ones who weren’t “progressive” enough), the Gospel message was the message of the cross. The Apostle Paul told the church in Corinth: “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” And: “I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” It was through the cross that God has made possible the redemption of all creation (Romans 3:21-8:39).

The billboard has it backwards. The cross cannot distract you from the message of Jesus. That message is not a bunch of ethical teaching followed by an awful tragedy upon which we wrongly fixate. That message is the message of the death and resurrection of the king, followed by principles of living in the new world that his death and resurrection makes possible. The so-called progressive take on the cross is anything but. It’s backwards.

Happy Easter – Christ is risen! 🙂

Glenn Peoples

I also published this blog entry over at the Preterist Blog.

I’m under no illusions about the fact that my view on the mind-body problem is a minority view in the history of Christian thought. I’m a physicalist. This puts me in the minority because, as well known Christian philosopher of mind William Hasker (himself a dualist of sorts) put it:

By all odds the most influential mind-body theory in Western civilization has been mind-body dualism. Dualism was first developed as a philosophical theory by some of the Greek philosophers, notably Plato. It was adopted by most of the Christian thinkers of the first few centuries and subsequently came to share Christianity’s dominance of European civilization.
Hasker, Metaphysics: Constructing a Worldview, Contours of Christian Philosophy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983), 65.

This is not such a terrible indictment on Christian theologians. It’s hard to live in a culture utterly saturated with a certain viewpoint without being influenced by it. As an almost inevitable result, “the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries of the Common Era (c.E.) drew upon various traditions within the Greco-Roman world from as early as Plato and Aristotle in formulating their language and concepts of the human person.” [Ray Anderson, “On Being Human: The Spiritual Saga of a Creaturely Soul” in Warren Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Maloney (eds) Whatever Happened to the Soul?: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 183.]

As the facts of history would have it in the pre-modern world, physicalism was a quiet voice amidst a loud dualist majority. As the facts of recent history would have it, the tables are turning on this state of affairs. In contemporary Christian philosophy and theology, there is a growing acceptance of physicalism as an expression of a biblical holisitc picture of humanity, evidenced by a flood of scholarly yet conservative books, articles, conferences and so on, advocating a real willingness to question the cultural baggage that Christianity has taken on board and a fresh willingness to revisit what the Bible has to say about all this. Christian dualism is still the majority view, but it is a majority in decline, a fact I take some pleasure in. If you’re a dualist, all of this may be a little unnerving. As Bob Dylan told us decades ago now, the times they are a changin’! I have no intention of dragging you kicking and screaming out of dualism in this fairly short blog entry, so don’t bother preparing for battle with me just now. The purpose of this blog isn’t to promote my views on that issue (however much I think those views would be good for your theology). However, it’s best to lay all my cards on the table right at the outset so you know what I am.

The reason I’m even broaching the subject is to draw attention to how philosophy of mind is related to the hyperpreterist controversy (controversy? OK, so in Christianity in general it’s not even a storm in a teacup, so insignificant is that movement, but you know what I mean). Hyperpreterism is necessarily a very dualistic outlook, even more dualistic than mainstream Christian dualism. Here’s why:

Read More

James S. Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (Chicago: Moody, 2010), 141 pages including notes.

One of the most endearing features of James Spiegel’s new book, The Making of an Atheist, is that it is quite short. You might think I’m kidding, or that this is a slight on the quality of the book (which is excellent, actually). It’s not. Dr Spiegel has some points to make, he makes them, and then he’s done. This is how I think all good Christian scholarship should be done (actually this is how all scholarship should be done, whatever the cause in which name it is done). It doesn’t take long to see what he’s getting at, it’s not hard to grasp, and once you’ve appreciated the point, you are allowed to leave, better off for having invested a relatively short amount of precious time.

Read More

Sure, things are quiet now, but just wait.

A few things are happening over the next couple of days. First, I’m at work writing the next podcast episode which (sans some sort of hectic last minute change) is on the subject of original sin. It’s a bit like a “nuts and bolts” blog, only it’s longer and it’s a podcast.

Secondly, in a couple of days I’ll be making good on the promise I made a while back to post a review of Jim Spiegel’s book, The Making of an Atheist: How immorality leads to unbelief. The book is doubtless going to inspire a number of blog posts in the future as well, such are the fascinating issues it wades through.

And as I mentioned just recently (and will mention plenty of times until the event arrives), I’m off to a conference at Oxford in late August. I’ll be spending time off and on between now and then putting my paper together and getting it into shape, as well as trying to drum up some support to help get me there.

So sit tight. The silence is about to be broken.

I’ve just completed an application for a lecturing role at a University in the UK (no need to mention which one). The section on employing people from overseas was not encouraging. Specifically, here’s what it said about applicants from outside the EEA:

If you are applying from outside the European Economic Area, the University will be required to prove that no other EEA national was capable of undertaking the work and obtain a work permit / certificate of sponsorship for you.

Now of course, this doesn’t prevent us from applying. But look at what it does say. It says that it’s not enough to be the best applicant – even the best by a country mile. The university cannot hire me unless it can prove that no applicant from within the EEA was even capable of doing the job. At all. If there was anyone capable of doing the job – even to a mediocre standard, then the literal wording of this policy means that I could be the greatest scholar in the entire world, but that person would get the job ahead of me.

How can a policy like this actually be good for a University?

PS If you haven’t seen my post on it yet, feel free to help me get to Oxford. (This reminder will appear every now and then until after August.)