In my latest post about choosing a modern Bible translation, Randy comments that:
“The problem that I have with the TNIV is that it is harder to see Jesus Christ in the Old Testament as Jesus said in Luke 24:26-27 “Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
When the TNIV changes the “he” (which refers to the Messiah) to “they” for gender neutral philosphy it diffently making seeing Christ in the Old Testament a heck of a lot harder. I like to read from different translations and when I can see Christ in the Old Testament from the literal translations of the Bible, but not in the TNIV than I wonder what good is the TNIV when it removes or hides Christ in the Old Testament for the sake of gender neutral philosphy.”
I’d like to set aside the gender issue for the moment and focus on the “jump to Jesus” aspect of Randy’s comment. Certainly there have been translations with masculine language, e.g. the RSV, that didn’t overtly read Jesus Christ into the OT texts. Gender language and Messianic interpretation don’t seem to be directly related issues, at least from a translation philosophy.
So, do Christians translate and/or read the OT texts with Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of messianic language or do we try to preserve/read them in the context of their immediate application to the original (non-Christian) recipients? Is the OT “just” a very long preface to Jesus or is it an autonomous document of a nation and people with a unique relationship with God. Or both.
Did Jesus interpret the scriptures on the road to Emmaus or did he reveal their original intent? Is that sufficient justification for Christians to exclusively do the same via Bible translation today? Or should the text be preserved and explained through external apparatus, e.g. commentary, teaching, study Bibles, etc?
Perhaps the more disturbing question to think about is exactly when did God decide that it was going to be necessary to make himself into a man and establish a new relationship with his creation? Was it immediately after Adam’s original sin (Genesis 3:15) or not until centuries later (Jeremiah 31:31-34) when Israel refused to honor their covenant terms? If the former, then why were centuries of history spent in a covenantal nation relationship ultimately doomed to fail? If the latter, then perhaps we ought to be more concerned with not “jumping to Jesus” in texts that were written before he was needed.
An answer to this would go a long way to providing an answer to the question of how to read the OT texts. Though ultimately, this question is unanswerable by all but our Sovereign Creator.
Revelation 13:8 says that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, and Ephesians 1:4 says that Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world, so I think that God had the new covenant in mind from the beginning. As far as Bible translations go, I’d like to see the verse that Randy is discussing. Is that in another post that you did on the subject?
Revelation 13:8 refers to salvation through Jesus being planned from the foundation of the world. The death of Jesus was not an afterthought.
Here’s the verse in ESV:
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Here’s the verse in KJV:
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
No matter which translational view we take, either the names were written from/before the foundation of the world, or the Lamb was slain from/before the foundation of the world.
Does that mean the ONLY possible meaning of any Old Testament passage is the one that looks to Jesus? (The “Christological” meaning, for those who like big words.) I’d say no. Some passages can have multiple applications; they had their original meaning, but the meaning was fulfilled (“filled fuller”) in reference to Jesus Christ. It’s not good for a translation to make it harder for the reader to see that. Of course, in any translation there are trade-offs. Meanwhile, I’m wondering: For people who are accustomed to singular “they” for gender-neutral language, using “they” may not really make it much harder for them to see the application to Jesus.
James: I don’t think Randy gave a specific OT verse as an example other than what might be found on the website he cited in the original comment (http://www.no-tniv.com/).
I appreciate the comments, both of you. Jim, your comment on plenary meaning reminds me of Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 13:12 — “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, then [when completeness comes] we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
I can not remember precisely where it where was, but I do believe that it was in the Psalms. Looking at the Psalms today I believe that Psalm 41:1-2 could be an example,
Blessed is he who considers the poor;
The LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.
2 The LORD will preserve him and keep him alive,
And he will be blessed on the earth;
You will not deliver him to the will of his enemies. (NKJV)
Blessed is the one who considers the poor!
In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him;
2 the Lord protects him and keeps him alive;
he is called blessed in the land;
you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. (ESV)
Happy is one who cares for the poor;
the LORD will save him in a day of adversity.
2 The LORD will keep him and preserve him;
he will be blessed in the land.
You will not give him over to the desire of his enemies. (HCSB)
Blessed is the one who is considerate of the destitute;
in the day of evil the LORD will deliver him.
2 The LORD will protect him and keep him alive;
and he will be blessed in the land;
and he will not be handed over to the desires of his enemies. (ISV)
Blessed are those who have regard for the weak;
the LORD delivers them in times of trouble.
2 The LORD protects and preserves them—
they are counted among the blessed in the land—
he does not give them over to the desire of their foes. (TNIV)
This passage may be about the Lord Jesus Christ and how God raised him up from the grave and not allow his enemies (Satan and his demons or even death itself) to be given victory over him. But, the TNIV removes that as a possibility with their gender neutral philosophy by translating “him” as “them”.
For people who are accustomed to singular “they” for gender-neutral language, using “they” may not really make it much harder for them to see the application to Jesus.
True, but would they naturally jump to Jesus the man from the word “they”? I think most Christians think male when they think of Christ. Shouldn’t male words be used in the OT if the translation is explicitly committed to showing the plenary fulfillment of the texts in reference to Jesus Christ?
I know that many translations capitalize pronouns associated with God and the Messiah, but has any translation gone so far as to replace the pronouns with explicit references to Jesus? That is, change the words of the text to fully illuminate the coming of Christ. If a translation is determined to read Christ back into the OT texts – why not go all the way and “translate” the plenary meaning into the text?
“A voice of one calling:
In the wilderness prepare
the way for Jesus the Son;
make straight in the desert
a highway for our Messiah.”
All that is a bit drastic for me personally, but it’s an interesting question to nibble on…
The question before us who believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament (I am glad to be one of these who do) should be about how to apply the prophecies of the O.T. to Jesus who is our messiah. It is not a translation question. If we really believe in translating what the text “says” then we need to translate what it says, and not revise the O.T. text in translation to conform to N.T. quotations of it. It is our wonderful privilege as N.T. believers to take the Holy Spirit’s *interpretations* of the O.T. passages and claim them as evidence that Jesus is the Promised One.
Those who try to bring this debate into translation are, IMO, thinking wrongly. We should never revise a document on the basis of documents that come later. Let each document stand on its own. Our Christian faith can remain solid based on how the Holy Spirit helped human authors of the N.T. to interpret O.T. passages. Jesus himself interpreted O.T. passages to refer to himself. This was (and still is) a very rabbinical kind of thing to do, to interpret scripture based on current contexts. But it doesn’t give us the liberty to change what the O.T. passages actually say based on our Christian faith.
Let’s just translate each part of the Bible for what it says and means in that passage.