# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S368 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 366 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS NRSV translation projects the modem notion of church membership into the text, involving the reader in a historical anachronism. In Luke 17:3 the NRSV substitutes the word “disciple” for “brother”: “If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repen- tance, you must forgive.” However, Greek has a word for “disciple” (ya@ntis), and that word does not appear in the text of Luke 17:3. Fur- thermore, the relationship denoted by “brother” is different from the rela- tionship denoted by “disciple.” “Brother” suggests a horizontal relation- ship of equality and mutual care. “Disciple” suggests a relationship to a teacher or master. This may be why the NRSV adds the word “another,” even though there is no such word in the Greek text. However, the famil- ial intimacy suggested by the term “brother” is lost in the rendering “another disciple.” The Greek word is correctly translated by “brother.” However, just as the plural anthropoi (a@vépanot, “men”) often refers without gender specificity to a group of persons, so also the plural adelphoi (aSeXo0i, “brothers”) sometimes may mean “brothers and sisters,” and the translator should be sensitive to those instances where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.” One such instance may be J Cor. 15:1: “Now L would remind you brethren (adeoo0i) in what terms I preached to you the gospel ....” Here the plural very like- ly refers to the Christians at Corinth quite apart from any intended gender differentiation. Therefore, the translation “1 made known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you” may better capture the meaning of the word. On the other hand, in Acts 7:2 adelphoi is clearly to be translated “brothers.” Stephen addresses the Sanhedrin with the intro- ductory words, “Men, brothers, and fathers” (avépes d5eoot kai natépes). F. Christians as “Children” Often (especially in the Johannine literature) Christians are designat- ed as “children” of God (John 1:12). This is a correct translation of the Greek véxva 6e00. However, such usage is not justification for translating with “children of God” when in fact the Greek speaks of Christians by the designation “sons of God” (vioi @e0d). In Gal. 3:26, for example, the text reads, “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” In such instances, the actual language of the Scriptures ought to guide and deter- mine the way we translate and read. + Regarding the importance of context in determining the meaning of a word, one might point to Paul's speech in Athens in Acts 17 Paul addresses his remarks to the “mer (avdpey) of Athens” tv. 22), but in verse 34, included in “some men {nvt5 ... Gvépe;)” who “oned him” is a woman by the name of Damanis. 37 V. SUMMARY A. General Principles 1. God's actions in history recorded in the Old Testament and New Testa- ment (including the results of those actions in the institutions of Israel, the configuration of its kingship, the apostles who were called, etc.) are normative and revelatory, and are not to be seen as essentially a prod- uct of a given culture or captive to it. . Biblical language reflects reality and is itself also revelatory. . The actual biblical text in the original languages is normative and must be respected. . Biblical reality is Christological and informs linguistic formulations in the Scriptures B. Practical Conclusions 1. General a. Statements about God and Jesus in the Scriptures cannot be dis- missed as “culture-bound” simply because such statements are not congruent with contemporary thought and practice. . While all translations and formulations must be able to be under- stood by contemporary hearers/readers, such understanding must be subservient to a faithful rendering of the biblical text. The masculine language and imagery which the Scriptures use for God is purposeful and therefore must not be neutralized, even to make it more accessible to contemporary interpreters. d. When used of the people of God, both masculine imagery (“sons”) and feminine imagery (“bride”) are inclusive. . Specific a. The first person of the Trinity is to be addressed as “Father” rather than as “Parent” or “Mother.” b. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is to be seen and addressed as the “Son of God” and not as the “Child of God.” G. Inclusive Feminine Language As is indicated above, the Scriptures use inclusive language which is masculine when the significant referent is Adam or Christ. However, itis important to note that the Scriptures also use inclusive language which is feminine, most significantly when referring to Israel or to the church in its relation to God or to Christ. For example, the Old Testament depicts God as the Husband to Israel, and correspondingly depicts Israel as the bride of God (Isa. 54:4-8; Jer. 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Hosea 1-3). In the New Testament this relationship is depicted especially by Paul in Eph. 5:22-33. Here Christ is said to be the Bridegroom of the church, his bride. In this reality of Christ’s bride, both Christian men and Christian women are included, but translations should preserve this feminine language and imagery by using “pride,” “wife,” etc., rather than generic terms. In this instance the inclu- sive language, although female, includes both male and female. The habit of the Bible to speak inclusively while using gender specific language should alert us to the fact that biblical language is not merely the expres- sion of social and cultural conventions of the ancient world, but rather is expressive of a meaning and of a significance which is truly biblical. That is, such language is the language of God’s revelation, which he wishes us to know and to ponder and to respect. . The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is not to be under- stood as a feminine principle in the Godhead and/or described with feminine pronouns (as “she” or “her’). . Feminine similes for Ged occur in the Scriptures, albeit rarely, and may also be used in appropriate ways. . Where the Scriptures describe Christians as huai theou (vtot Bead), the expression should be rendered into English as “sons of God.” While certain passages—especially in the Johannine writings—describe Christians as “children of God” (téxva @c00), that formulation is nor- mative only within its specific context. . Asa general rule, the person and number of biblical statements should be respected. Thus, singulars should not become plurals and third person statements should not become second person state- ments. . Latitude exists in the understanding and rendering of adelphoi (aSehooi), “brothers,” and anthrapoi (Gv@panot), “men.” When these words have a general referent (e.g., a mixed group or Christians in general), translations such as “brothers and sisters” (for GSeAeoi) and “people” (for dv8pwno.) may well be appropriate. in view of the sen- sitivity of many, also within Christian audiences, to issues of gender inclusivity in the use of language, the use of such plurals in the text may offer opportunity through translation to ensure that both women and men are clearly included in the presentation. Christian concern suggests that in sermons, Bible classes, and other presenta- tions one must be sensitive to the concems of all hearers. It demon- strates Christian care to communicate in a way that makes certain both women and men are included in the presentation. . The feminine imagery in the Scriptures for the people of God (israel, the church) must be respected and should not be neutralized. Thus, for example, the church is the “bride” of Christ and not simply his “spouse.”