Translation is Important But Worth Less Than Love: A Review Essay by Jonathan Downie

Collin Hansen, “The Son And the Crescent: Bible translations that avoid the phrase ‘Son of God’ are bearing dramatic fruit among Muslims. But that translation has some missionaries and scholars dismayed” Christianity Today (February 2011), pages 18-23.

Translation choices continue to be a major issue for the church. While preparing this review, news showed that the choices made in a further update to the NIV has led to a prominent denomination expressing disappointment with two large Christian publishers. As a professional translator, I obviously care about the choices translators make. However, as a believer, I care much more for my brothers and sisters in Christ.

There is no doubt that the translation issue covered in the article covered by this review is an important one: what should Bible translators do with concepts and phrases that might cause offence? What if a cultural or linguistic understanding of a Biblical phrase could prevent a barrier to someone receiving Christ? How far should translators go in their work to present the Word of God in a language people understand?

The specific example in this article is by no means an easy one. For many Muslims, the phrase “Son of God” paints the picture of God having physical sexual relations with Mary, an idea which is an anathema both to them and, I would imagine, to the vast majority of Evangelical Christians. We all understand that the Biblical writers are here intending to paint a picture of Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit and His intimacy with the Father.

The phrase “Son of God” therefore, is clearly a critical Biblical concept. It means far more than a purely linguistic analysis of the words would suggest and plays an important role in Biblical theology. Few could deny that knowledge of Christ and His purpose is not complete without a deep understanding of what is going on whenever this phrase is mentioned. It remains to be seen whether the proposed replacement “the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God” could ever fully stand in its place.

On the other hand, the results of making this change have been astounding. In a single network of house churches that have used a translation that has adopted this phrase, hundreds of Muslims have accepted Christ as their saviour. If Jesus is right that you recognise Christians by their love for each other (John 13: 35), do particular phrases in Bible translations really matter? Surely, perfect love and not perfect theology is the mark of the true Church.

The arguments could easily rage in either direction and as a reviewer, I find myself pulled both ways. This is not a topic that offers an easy route to neutrality. Whatever stance one takes, important and Biblically sound arguments exist in contradiction.

Perhaps this is actually the issue: we take sides more easily than we give love. This kind of behaviour is not new, Paul had to rebuke the Corinthian church for taking sides behind one preacher or another (1 Cor 1: 12-21). There may well have been real and perhaps even important theological differences between Paul, Apollos and Peter but Paul is keen to remind the church that our common faith in Christ is greater than our differences.

We might make a similar point about the tendency to back one Bible translation strategy over another. As I have written elsewhere (The Pneuma Review, vol. 12 no. 3., Summer 2009, pp. 24-43), there are real problems and issues with every strategy. Something goes wrong no matter how we translate the Word: this why almost all pastors and theologians warn against only using a single translation for study. We need the wisdom of multiple counsel.

Perhaps something like this strategy is needed in this case too. Just as many of us may have moved from preferring one translation and then another as we have grown as believers, so might the Muslims in this article. In the beginning, when they have little Biblical knowledge and many misconceptions, the new translation might be useful. This is similar to the way that Jesus and Paul used parables and illustrations built around familiar, earthly activities to explain spiritual concepts. Of course, the resemblance was not exact (the Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer or a pearl merchant, it is not either of these exactly) but it was enough. All of us need to start somewhere and the Bible offers many examples of God coming to meet us where we are, in the language we speak.

Later on, as they mature, these new converts might move onto a different translation. They might indeed come to the point that Robert Yarborough mentions in the article, where the phrase “Son of God” holds no difficulty at all. The same point might be made about the word “covenant” in English. Few outside the church have any concept of what this word might mean and so some translations have sprung up that use the word “agreement” instead. Again, as believers develop and hear more teaching, the word loses its mystery and so it becomes easier to read translations that use it.

In the meantime, two questions remain. The first is the same question that began this article. Just how far should translators go in their work to make the Word of God accessible? When does “changing the presentation” become “changing the message?” Does such a line even exist?

The only starting point would seem to be the ancient confessions and limits of the Christian faith recorded in the Word and in Patristic documents. It is for crossing this line that Paul corrected the Galatians, who were in danger of replacing “salvation by grace” for “salvation by works.” It is this line that was discussed in the Jerusalem Councils in Acts where the Apostles accepted that God had made salvation open to the gentiles, after it had been shown that God was pouring His Spirit on them too.

The second question is even more important. While we wait to discover ever contour of the line of belief and theology that must not be crossed, how do we treat those with opposite opinions? How should those who disagree with a translation strategy treat those who use it? How should the Church respond to new salvations that come about in ways that we dislike?

This answer is incredibly simple. If we are truly to be the Body of Christ, we must love. To those we disagree with, the response must be love. To our enemies, the response must be love. To those who have given their lives to Christ while reading a translation we would not use, the response must be love. As Paul said to the Corinthians in the middle of their educated arguments over whether Christians should eat food offered to idols: “We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.” (1 Corinthians 8:1b NKJV). It is love, not knowledge or arguments or divisions that should be our response.

Reviewed by Jonathan Downie

At the time of printing, the full article was available online: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/soncrescent.html