I’ve been studying Ephesians for preaching and want to share some thoughts on Ephesians 1:4-5. I’ve copied some English versions below:
KJV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
RSV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
NIV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—
NLT
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure.
ESV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
In each of these versions the phrase ‘in love’ is taken with v. 5 – in the New Living Translation the sense is given as ‘God loved us’, which is in keeping with a v. 5 ‘in love’, except the KJV which takes ‘in love’ with v. 4.
Interestingly the commentators, including Calvin, Barth, Lincoln and Wright all take the phrase ‘in love’ with v. 4, e.g Tom Wright ‘4 He chose us in him before the world was made, so as to be holy and irreproachable before him in love. 5 He foreordained us for himself …’
The Greek texts reads as one sentence from 1:3 down to 1:14 and in the NA 27 edition en agape is separated from v. 5 by a comma.
It seems to me that it makes a great difference where you read this short phrase. If you take it with v. 5 you end up reading that the predestination of us by God was undertaken ‘in love’, presumably God acting in love to predestine those he will predestine. Now this is good theology, I’m sure God did act in love when he issued his decree of predestination. However, I don’t think that is what Paul is trying to say here.
Rather taking the phrase in v. 4, Lincoln writes
‘But “in love” should rather be seen as part of the goal of election is intended to achieve in those it embraces – a life before God which is holy and blameless and lived in love.’ (page 17)
God’s decree of election has a goal, a purpose. The election of Abraham and through him Israel had the purpose of bringing a blessing to the nations – election is to service. In NT terms God elects those he elects to live a life which can be characterised by love, described as being lived ‘in love’. And so a sermon on these verses rather than focusing upon God’s secret and still hidden decree of election should exhort and encourage God’s people to live lives ‘in love’ which are holy and blameless before God.
I find it sad, and dangerous, that so many otherwise fine English versions have made a translation choice here which reflects an orthodox theology rather than the intention of the Holy Spirit at work in the Apostle. The sentence structure imposed upon Eph 1:3-14 in every English version is based upon interpretative choices. I don’t think I would like to see bibles printed where all of these choices are explained, but I do think such verses highlight the need for careful exegesis and good exposition on the part of those called by God and appointed by the church to teach Holy Scripture.
Showing posts with label Translation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Translation. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Tom Wright Justification 2
Chapter 2 – Rules of engagement.
In the long term, this may be one of the most important chapters in Wright’s book. Here Wright sets out a methodology for the study of Paul and/or justification. So often in church life today there is disagreement about theology or praxis which arises in large part from the different starting places and varied assumptions made by those taking part in the debates.
Wright contends that exegesis “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions that it raises in itself and the answers it given in and of itself” (page 23) is the beginning and end of the task of understanding Paul and justification.
Systematise all you want in between; we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it and much to be said for it, particularly when it involves careful comparing of different treatments of similar topics in different contexts. But start with exegesis, and remind yourself that the end in view is not a tidy system, sitting in hard covers on a shelf where one may look up ‘correct answers’, but the sermon, or the shared pastoral reading, or the scriptural word to a Synod or other formal church gathering, or indeed the life of witness to the love of God, through all of which the church is built up and energized for mission, the Christian is challenged, transformed and nurtured in the faith, and the unbeliever is confronted with the shocking but joyful news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. That is letting scripture be scripture. (pages 23-24)
Yes, what a wonderful paragraph! Any attempt to study scripture, to know God in any meaningful way involves theology. We cannot but have a theology, so we might as well have one that is well thought through and holds together well (a good systematics). But, too often we have allowed the system to control our reading of the text. We instinctively reject readings of scripture that don’t fit in with the system we hold. We look for answers in the big system rather than in the text of scripture. I heard Phillip Jensen at the EMA in 1997 tell us that he thinks Calvinists have a real problem with this. Thinking that Calvin’s system is so good we cannot imagine the text of scripture ever disagreeing with Calvin, so we amend our understanding of scripture to fit in with what we think Calvin wrote, although most times we have that wrong as well! So a big yes to having a good systematic theology, but a massive no (or even a Pauline me genoito) to allowing our system to take priority over our exegesis. It is good exegesis that will bring God’s word with power into all of the situations described by Wright at the end of the paragraph, and how great is the need for a clear statement of scripture in our churches and church courts.
Wright makes a good case for the inclusion of Ephesians in any study of Paul and justification, pages 26-28. It is curious how often conservative readings of justification do not attend to Ephesians, or Colossians for that matter.
Wright then suggests that we need to develop ‘A Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ (page 28 and following). There is a hermeneutic circle of theology and theological interpretation. Luther and Calvin were not only influenced by Augustine and the New Testament, but by all the theology that had been written and taught in between. It is important to consider which theological technical terms are not biblical, e.g. ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ and what associations are gathering into theology by the use of the Latin term iustitia? Now this is not to say that non biblical terms cannot be wisely used to help us understand scripture, rather that we do this too often without being aware of it and we do need to remind ourselves of the theological baggage we bring to scripture.
As an historian Wright is always concerned about historical questions.
We come with the questions and issues we have learned from elsewhere [other than scripture]. This is a perennial problem for all of us, but unless we are to declare, here and now, that God has no more light to break out of his holy word – that everything in scripture has already been discovered by our elders and betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what scripture says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is needed. I know that John Calvin would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. (page 33)
Wright is not saying that God will give fresh revelations of himself other than scripture (that’s a whole different discussion!). His point is this: can we in our study of scripture understand God’s word more clearly than earlier generations of students? If not, why do we study scripture, we should print text with Augustine, Luther and Calvin, like some Christian Gemora, and learn to interpret the few chosen interpreters. But, if we do believe that God will lead us in our study of scripture into his ways, not previously known, then historical study, not only of scripture but of theology is urgently required.
Wright ends this chapter with a complaint against contemporary English translations of Paul, particularly the NIV. In particular Wright mentions the translation of Rom 3:21-26
NIV - Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
I’ve copied the text above and you can see that the NIV has used ‘righteousness’ in vv. 21, 22, but justified, justice, just, justifies in vv. 24-26, which the same dikaisoun- root is used in the Greek. (I tried to copy the NA27 text but this blog post doesn't hold that font) Wright’s point is that this variety in English usage sets up a particular way of reading vv. 21-22 which is not what Paul intended. This point will be picked up in great detail in chapter 7 when Wright offers comments on Romans.
Three main things then:
1. Exegesis needs to have priority over systematic theology.
2. History is important, both in relation to scripture and theology.
3. Read the text, and make sure what you are reading is the text.
In the long term, this may be one of the most important chapters in Wright’s book. Here Wright sets out a methodology for the study of Paul and/or justification. So often in church life today there is disagreement about theology or praxis which arises in large part from the different starting places and varied assumptions made by those taking part in the debates.
Wright contends that exegesis “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions that it raises in itself and the answers it given in and of itself” (page 23) is the beginning and end of the task of understanding Paul and justification.
Systematise all you want in between; we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it and much to be said for it, particularly when it involves careful comparing of different treatments of similar topics in different contexts. But start with exegesis, and remind yourself that the end in view is not a tidy system, sitting in hard covers on a shelf where one may look up ‘correct answers’, but the sermon, or the shared pastoral reading, or the scriptural word to a Synod or other formal church gathering, or indeed the life of witness to the love of God, through all of which the church is built up and energized for mission, the Christian is challenged, transformed and nurtured in the faith, and the unbeliever is confronted with the shocking but joyful news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. That is letting scripture be scripture. (pages 23-24)
Yes, what a wonderful paragraph! Any attempt to study scripture, to know God in any meaningful way involves theology. We cannot but have a theology, so we might as well have one that is well thought through and holds together well (a good systematics). But, too often we have allowed the system to control our reading of the text. We instinctively reject readings of scripture that don’t fit in with the system we hold. We look for answers in the big system rather than in the text of scripture. I heard Phillip Jensen at the EMA in 1997 tell us that he thinks Calvinists have a real problem with this. Thinking that Calvin’s system is so good we cannot imagine the text of scripture ever disagreeing with Calvin, so we amend our understanding of scripture to fit in with what we think Calvin wrote, although most times we have that wrong as well! So a big yes to having a good systematic theology, but a massive no (or even a Pauline me genoito) to allowing our system to take priority over our exegesis. It is good exegesis that will bring God’s word with power into all of the situations described by Wright at the end of the paragraph, and how great is the need for a clear statement of scripture in our churches and church courts.
Wright makes a good case for the inclusion of Ephesians in any study of Paul and justification, pages 26-28. It is curious how often conservative readings of justification do not attend to Ephesians, or Colossians for that matter.
Wright then suggests that we need to develop ‘A Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ (page 28 and following). There is a hermeneutic circle of theology and theological interpretation. Luther and Calvin were not only influenced by Augustine and the New Testament, but by all the theology that had been written and taught in between. It is important to consider which theological technical terms are not biblical, e.g. ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ and what associations are gathering into theology by the use of the Latin term iustitia? Now this is not to say that non biblical terms cannot be wisely used to help us understand scripture, rather that we do this too often without being aware of it and we do need to remind ourselves of the theological baggage we bring to scripture.
As an historian Wright is always concerned about historical questions.
We come with the questions and issues we have learned from elsewhere [other than scripture]. This is a perennial problem for all of us, but unless we are to declare, here and now, that God has no more light to break out of his holy word – that everything in scripture has already been discovered by our elders and betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what scripture says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is needed. I know that John Calvin would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. (page 33)
Wright is not saying that God will give fresh revelations of himself other than scripture (that’s a whole different discussion!). His point is this: can we in our study of scripture understand God’s word more clearly than earlier generations of students? If not, why do we study scripture, we should print text with Augustine, Luther and Calvin, like some Christian Gemora, and learn to interpret the few chosen interpreters. But, if we do believe that God will lead us in our study of scripture into his ways, not previously known, then historical study, not only of scripture but of theology is urgently required.
Wright ends this chapter with a complaint against contemporary English translations of Paul, particularly the NIV. In particular Wright mentions the translation of Rom 3:21-26
NIV - Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
I’ve copied the text above and you can see that the NIV has used ‘righteousness’ in vv. 21, 22, but justified, justice, just, justifies in vv. 24-26, which the same dikaisoun- root is used in the Greek. (I tried to copy the NA27 text but this blog post doesn't hold that font) Wright’s point is that this variety in English usage sets up a particular way of reading vv. 21-22 which is not what Paul intended. This point will be picked up in great detail in chapter 7 when Wright offers comments on Romans.
Three main things then:
1. Exegesis needs to have priority over systematic theology.
2. History is important, both in relation to scripture and theology.
3. Read the text, and make sure what you are reading is the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)