Christ set aside his divine nature to live among us. He came and died for us when we had gone astray like sheep. There is no way to fully convey how overwhelming this is. But this parable is the closest analogy I can make.
There was once an engineer known as the General Operations Designer, or "GOD" for short. He made robots and lived in the North Pole. As a human, he is obviously far more advanced than robots. Whereas they can only do simple things, he could actually be in three places at once. He was at once the Programmer, the Designer, and the Broadcaster of instructions. So, GOD made several simple robots, and then worked on the blueprint of his masterpiece. He fine-tuned the programming and saw that it is good, and so he started production on the HU-MAN series of robots.
They worked well, and he saw that it was very good. These robots were made to run indefinitely – which is good, since he wanted them to spread out and maintain the entire earth. Sure, the batteries needed recharging, but the batteries would never need replacing. The programming allowed the robots to do everything they were supposed to, and the Designer occasionally broadcasted updates that would allow them to perform new tasks, or do old ones better.
But one day, something went wrong: one of the robots tripped over a chord it did not see, and got damaged. Somehow, it became infected with a virus, and the virus spread to other robots. They began to act disorderly and go against their original purpose. You see, the virus fooled the robots into thinking they were receiving updates when they actually weren't. Sometimes, these fake updates would make the robots shut down to "install" them, but there was nothing new to install. They stayed shut down, and would never restart.
Now, the Designer was very fond of HU-MANs and refused to destroy them all and start over. So, he continued sending updates with the new orders that he wanted them to carry out. But the robots just weren't working properly. They were receiving mixed signals and conflicting orders, because they couldn't tell which updates were real and which ones were not.
And so, the situation called for more drastic measures. Fortunately, the Designer noticed one particular model, designated N0AH, who seemed to be able to know which updates are real and which ones are not. N0AH properly carried out the Designer's orders. And so, the Designer decided to wipe out all the current models except for N0AH, seven of the ones N0AH worked with, and a handful of all the lesser robots.
Even N0AH eventually took false updates and he shut down. The continuing generations of robots kept getting worse. They spread out over the whole earth and they produced at a faster rate, just as the Designer had wanted. Unfortunately, the virus contaminated the robots so completely now that they could not even receive updates from the Designer at all. They also began to shut down more quickly than before N0AH's time.
Since near-complete destruction didn't work, and complete destruction is an option the Designer refused to entertain, he did his best to maintain the HU-MAN series despite their system failure. But deep down, he wanted to completely fix them. So, he created the perfect anti-virus software, the T0RAH. In theory, it would eradicate the virus. But since the robots had come to take updates from the virus rather than the true updates that the Designer was broadcasting, he decided to upload this software manually – something he hadn't done in a very long time. Besides, this was a beta version, so he had to start with only a small group. The Designer picked one factory line and found one model he liked right off the assembly: M08E8. He then manually uploaded the beta version of the T0RAH into M08E8.
The Designer thought that all would be well. The T0RAH was successfully downloaded by M08E8 and transmitted from him to others produced in the same factory. But there was still a problem: the software did not install properly because the coding was too complicated and was foreign to the coding of the original HU-MAN blueprint. It could detect the virus in the robots, but not eliminate it. That was the part that continually needed reinstallation. And then, of course, there were the other factories who didn't even get to try this beta version of the software yet. A few models from other factories came in contact with someone who broadcasted the T0RAH, but the effect was the same.
The Designer was not satisfied. He was furious with the virus, and with his creations for ignoring the updates he directly broadcasted. He continued manually appearing to a few robots and sending them instructions, but the others would not listen for very long. Eventually the virus would again wipe most of their memories away. Yet one thing the Designer said was that he would make a new version of the T0RAH with less complicated coding and would interact better with the original HU-MAN systems.
In order to fulfill that promise, GOD came up with a plan. He would create one HU-MAN who would be able to open the T0RAH files, install them, and update them. Since no robot could do this, GOD would have to take on their nature and become a robot himself. He would be subject to recharging, parts malfunctions, and even oil leakage. How demeaning!
Nonetheless, he made some very, very complicated plans to transform into a HU-MAN. GOD went to the same factory where he found N0AH and M08E8, and there he picked one model whose number was 1E8U8. He was exactly like all the other HU-MAN models in every way, parts coming from the same assembly line as the rest of them. The key difference is that GOD merged his consciousness with the programming of the CPU.
If everything went according to plan (which so far, it hadn't!), GOD would intercept the virus signal and analyze it while manually updating the T0RAH software. So GOD (the Programmer) took on robotic nature and became 1E8U8. And yet, GOD still maintained his consciousness apart from 1E8U8 and lived as both the Designer and the Broadcaster.
1E8U8 managed to update the T0RAH and broadcast it, but many other robots refused to receive the signal. And so, as GOD had anticipated, they shut him down. But unlike all the other robots, 1E8U8 managed to... managed to... reboot.
1E8U8 then became the Prototype for a new HU-MAN series which has the T0RAH properly installed. He passed on the modified T0RAH to twelve robots who sought to preserve and pass down the T0RAH for the rest of us.
I've decided that I'm going to eventually make the move to Wordpress.
Two things led me not to do this before:
1. I liked the ads program that was supposed to generate a little money (google owes me $2.50 for that, btw)
2. I wanted to import all of my blogspot posts. I'm no longer sure if I want to do that.
When/if I make the big leap, I'll make sure to let you guys know.
In the meantime, let's talk about Psalm 46. Here's the NIV text.
1 God is our refuge and strength,
an ever-present help in trouble.
2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way
and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,
3 though its waters roar and foam
and the mountains quake with their surging.
Selah
4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
5 God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.
6 Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall;
he lifts his voice, the earth melts.
7 The LORD Almighty is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Selah
8 Come and see the works of the LORD,
the desolations he has brought on the earth.
9 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear,
he burns the shields with fire.
10 "Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth."
11 The LORD Almighty is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Selah
General thoughts on the structure of the Psalm
This happens to be my favorite psalm. I roughly divide the structure into two parts:
1-7: Communal declaration of faith: God is present to protect us, even if the world is falling around our ears.
8-11: Call to worship.
Several ideas really jump off the page in this psalm. Fire, waters, mountains, and warfare. I almost have to ask why tornadoes aren't mentioned -- I guess that element wasn't really an issue for the Israelites. But regardless of that, all of these things are elemental calamities, things too great for any one person or even a small village to stop. In fact, even mighty kings don't always win wars, so we have to remember that these items: fire, water, earthquakes, and war; are scary primal forces of destruction that we are ultimately helpless against.
But God is not helpless against them. You think those things are "desolations?" That's nothing compared to what God can actively cause. He is the Lord. He has mastery over all of these primal forces, and can even turn them against one another, breaking spears and burning shields.
On a theological level, we can take this psalm at face value as showing us God's mastery over the elemental forces, his ability to protect us, and also his worthiness for worship. An attempt to reconstruct the situation that prompted this psalm will confirm that face-value interpretation.
The Story behind the Psalm: my Interpretation
When your city is under siege, the most important thing you could do is call on God for protection. And so, we have this communal declaration of faith. Even when surrounded by a pagan army that seeks only to rape, pillage, and slaughter, we affirm that God will protect us. Although the elemental imagery of fire, earthquakes, and water can be read at face-value to show God's mastery over the elements, if we read this at the literary level, these images basically represent all hell breaking loose. Verses 6 and 9 make it clear that the major issue is warfare.
Imagine for a moment that you are a priest in Jerusalem. You're under siege from, say, Babylon. Whenever two armies clash in the physical realm, it is thought that the gods themselves also clash in the metaphysical realm on behalf of their armies. That is, unless you have displeased your gods. Because then you're SOL.
So you, as a priest, you worship before the Lord, offer sacrifices, and you prostrate yourself and pray. You join in affirming this creed declaring God's protection, roughly similar to 46:1-7. "Our God is our fortress. He will save when the going gets tough and our lives are in danger. Even though no actual river passes through Jerusalem, there is always the 'river' of God's faithfulness to his promise to our forefather, Abraham (Gen 12:2-3). God is within his holy city -- he won't let it fall to the siege. Nations come and go -- they act in confused, godless, disarray. But God makes His decree, and the land itself melts. Our God is our fortress."
And then, you hear the charge of the Babylonian army. You can't help but look out across the area surrounding Jerusalem. A charging army is a spectacle in and of itself, but something truly extraordinary is happening. For just a second, the land starts shaking and the waters foam. The shields of the charging army are suddenly set ablaze. Spears snap just below the head. Bowstrings suddenly snap. As the halted army looks at their equipment in horror and seeks to unstrap their now-flaming shields, the heavens open, and a voice echoes forth: "STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING! ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER."
From the Babylonian perspective
How surprising it must be for an army to be suddenly stopped due to natural disaster and a widespread case of equipment failure -- not to mention spontaneous combustion!
Clearly, your gods have failed you. The voice of the gods that comes out of heaven says he is God. There's no one like him. There's only one god. He calls you to "be still" [i.e. "halt" or "stop"] and acknowledge that very fact -- that he alone is God. Even though you came to rape and pillage and destroy his people, God is calling you to stop and worship. While your gods failed you -- or, apparently, don't exist -- this God who stopped your charge and broke your equipment now calls you to join his people in worshiping him.
The Israelite Perspective: After the Event
Now you take this creed about God's protection on his people (the paraphrase I made up above) and you work it into a complete psalm. You change the wording of the hymn so that it reflects elemental language (fire, earth, water). You add verses 8-10 to the creed in memory of God's saving power when he answered your cry. Then you end with verse 11, which repeats verse 7. You decide to repeat that verse as if to end the psalm by saying "that's who our God is," much in the way of a child showing off how amazing his daddy is. (Of course, the Holy Spirit inspires this reworking of a basic hymn into a scriptural psalm, but I won't try to explain it because I can't imagine it).
In Summary
This psalm is a communal declaration of faith in God's deliverance. It is also (as I imagine it) a testimony to God's saving power. This psalm is a declaration of God's mastery over the primal forces of earth, water, and fire. It is also an indictment against the aimless and vain ways of nations not in submission to God (compare 46:6 with Psalm 2) -- which is to say, every nation.
And also, this psalm is a call to worship. It is even an evangelistic call to worship. Those who came pillage are called to pray alongside those who they sought to destroy. I'm not sure if we really give this enough thought, but God is evangelistic in the OT as well as the NT. He's constantly reminding his own people that he alone is God (e.g. Exodus 20:2). Yet he also concerns himself with revealing himself to all the nations.
In the New Testament we have the principle of "First to the Jew, then to the Gentile." It was no different in the Old Testament. First, you have to get a small segment of people to get things right, and only then can you get the whole world to get things right. That's why God focused on the Hebrews in particular. But really, there was nobody who could "get things right" and be an example. Fortunately, we have Christ to be our example. He got things right.
From now on, I hope you'll never use the phrase "Be still and know that I am God" as a meek little devotional mantra. It is actually quite forceful and awe-inspiring. Not just is it a call for God's people to worship him because of his deliverance, but it's also a call for unbelievers to start worshiping the Lord.
So, it's been forever since I've written a note, right? Not one since about when I picked up carving. Let me fill you guys in on what's been going on.
I've learned how to comfortably carve wooden spoons that are not just functional but beautiful to look at. I deeply enjoy being able to craft something with my own hands. At some point, I'll make videos and/or a note as a how-to guide. But that's not what I'm going to talk about now.
I've been out of a job for ten months now. With three years' college experience, no degree, and no car, it's been very difficult to find work. Just a few days ago, Home Depot called in response to my application from several weeks ago. I apparently did well on the surprise phone interview, but they said they'd call in a week or two if they were interested in hiring me. So, I passed the first obstacle on my attempt to become a cashier.
Yeah, that's pretty cool. But even more interesting was what happened today. You see, I've been wanting to get involved in mission work/ministry for a while but due to certain factors it's not been an option. However, I know of an excellent ministry in the Philippines called Give a Goat. Their goal is to break the cycle of poverty in the Philippines by giving people goats. The goats provide milk, and they breed to make more goats after a year or two. In return, the people give one or two of the kids from the first litter to repay for the goats they were given in the first place. Then Give a Goat gives these repaid baby goats to other people who could use goats. It's a great ministry, so check it out.
The founder of Give a Goat is Salvador Cariaga. I know his son, Peter, from OC. Now, I've been talking with Salvador through facebook for a while about helping out, particularly because Salvador is in Fort Worth often. I got to have lunch with him today and I told him about my work with spoons. His face brightened because he came up with a few ideas as to how that could be helpful in the Philippines. You see, not just do they give goats, but Give a Goat and related ministries also do micro-lending to help poor people get on their feet and become self-sufficient. I have been using carving as sort of a way of micro-lending to myself, haha.
One problem Sal has encountered, though, is that many of his fellow Filipinos cut down trees. This is a waste. (I don't remember his exact reason, but deforestation is a problem in and of itself!) But with spoon carving, you can make a great spoon just by finding the right branch. You don't have to use the trunk. And if trees, as renewable sources of branches, become too valuable to cut down, then the deforestation will stop.
And then they could make spoons or forks or something which could be sold in other countries for a pretty decent price. Well... maybe. We first have to determine if there would be a market interested in buying wooden spoons. Considering all the positive comments I've gotten for my work so far, I'd say there is. The second issue would be figuring out what kinds of wood in the Philippines could be used for carving. You can't use really hard wood like cherry wood all the time because it would take very long to make even one spoon. But you also shouldn't use scented woods like pine, cedar, or redwood. Scented woods add an odd flavor to food, so that's a no-go. SO, whether this can work depends on the availability of carvable wood. Honestly, I'd suspect that there are at least a few types of trees there that would work fine.
Those are the drawbacks. The bonuses, however, make this very appealing. For one thing, this is a very simple craft. I picked this up and started doing well in about a month. I only had online help and about five minutes of guidance from a carpenter in person. Also, there are no power tools involved. You only need a few hand tools ($100 for the high-quality stuff sold in American stores). And what's more, the base materials (a tree branch) cost practically nothing. There will be plenty of wood shavings from the branches, so there is still wood to use for mulch, and there will also be some sawdust to use in gardening.
Now, I find this opportunity to go to the Philippines very appealing. Not just is there the opportunity to help people, teach, and encourage, but I'd get to learn about another culture and learn another language. And there's more to it than that. I could teach English -- good English. It's very helpful on a student's resume to be able to say you know fluent English. And I could also help teach Bible. Plus, Sal has connections to a Bible college or two down there where my OC credits could transfer and the tuition is very little. And yes, they can give a legitimate B.A.
Although I can't immediately commit to this, I am very excited about this opportunity. If this works out, I will end up being very enriched in learning a new culture/language, very educated from finally getting my degree, and very tan from being out in the sun a lot. Sounds great. In the process, I'll be able to help teach carpentry, English, and the Bible, plus help make disciples and serve as Jesus did. The cost of this opportunity would be separation from friends and family and at least $500 a month. But the gain from this would be beyond measure in my life and the lives of others.
Everyone, I ask you to pray about this with me, OK? May God open doors and grant discernment so that I would be shaped into an effective servant.
Here I put forth my philosophy for how and how not to translate Philippians. I intend this book to be for a general audience, and I would like to make an explanation that is thorough but not over most people's heads. But because of its technical character, I think it would be better to put it as an appendix in the back since I don't want the technicalness of this section to give the readers a first impression that the whole commentary will be too technical to follow. It's a bit long, but hopefully the illustrations make it worthwhile.
Some people are very strong towards dynamic equivalence while others are very strong towards essentially literal translations. If you're a die-hard member of either camp, you'll find plenty of reason to complain about this translation since I try to maximize the benefits of both and minimize the disadvantages of both.
_______
Put bluntly, it would be a mistake to render the book of Philippians (or any book) word-for-word (W4W) from Greek to English. Doing so often leads to stilted or awkward English. This begs the question: was Paul writing in a way that was stilted or awkward? If he was not, then that is not how he should be translated.
All translation concerns fall under the umbrella of accuracy. "Is the translation accurate?" Sadly, that statement is rather vague. What constitutes accuracy? Perhaps you'd say that accuracy is whatever translates W4W. Unfortunately, languages are too complex to really work that way. This is because of how meaning works in languages. Meaning exists not just at the level of individual words, but in how words fit together in sentences. The primary unit of meaning is the sentence and not the individual word.
For instance, take the word "tear." This actually could be any of four different words:
1A) the noun "tear," referring to the wet stuff that comes out of your eyes
1B) the verb "to tear (up)," meaning to produce tears (in the sense of 1A)
2A) the noun "tear," as a synonym for rip
2B) the verb "to tear (up)," which means to produce a tear (in the sense of 2A)
If you see the word "tear" in a sentence rather than by itself, then you will automatically be able to tell if it's a verb or a noun by looking at the other parts of speech. If nothing else in the sentence is a verb, then it's likely that this "tear" is a verb and not a noun -- but which verb? You'd have to see what's going on in the previous sentences to figure that out.
So, picture for a moment a connect-the-dots puzzle for kids. Notice how the lines just form a very simple outline and the different dots only connect to the ones right next to them. That's what it's like to take words individually. Language is more complex than that. Instead, it is more like a spider web where all the strands interconnect and reinforce each other. That is how it works: each individual contributes to the overall pattern, and the overall pattern limits and defines where each individual strand should be placed and which other strands it needs to intersect with.
So, since meaning primarily exists at the level of the overall thought, maybe you'd recommend that I instead take a thought-for-thought (T4T) approach like the NIV does. That still doesn't do perfect justice, though, since some meaning can be found not just at the level of the thought itself, but also in the specific word choice used to express the thought.
I'm going to pick on the NLT for a moment. Let's look at 1 Kings 18. Here we have an epic fire-breathing match between The Lord and Baal. In one corner is Elijah, who alone represents the Lord against 450 priests of Baal. When their fervent prayers do not elicit any response from Baal, Elijah taunts them in verse 27: “You’ll have to shout louder, for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming, or is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!” Clearly Elijah is making Baal out to be much less than a god. He seeks to embarrass the priests of Baal.
I want zero in specifically on the words "relieving himself." This is a euphemism in English. But would someone really use a euphemism in this situation? Euphemisms are polite, but insulting someone is not polite. So, wouldn't it generally make sense that you wouldn't use a euphemism when you're insulting someone? If Elijah is being impolite, then we need to use an impolite expression in order for it to carry the flavor across. While the NLT is bland here, a more flavorful translation would be "taking a dump."
[The reason translations do not do this is because of the concern for acceptability. Some people would be offended to hear "take a dump" in the Bible. Their reasoning is that Bible is holy, and therefore it certainly can't have anything unholy in it. However, that doesn't make sense. There are unholy things in the Bible, such as lies (e.g. Genesis 3:4-5), murder (Genesis 4:8), greed (Genesis 13:10-11), insubordination/intimidation (Genesis 16:5-6), incest (Genesis 19:30-34), rape (Genesis 34:3), and adultery (Genesis 39:6-7) -- and all that is in just ONE book. The Bible is not just a book of flowers and butterflies, folks. It reflects real life, and crude language is a part of real life just as much as any of the other things I just mentioned. To try and deny that is to diminish accuracy and give a false impression of dishonest politeness.]
W4W translations seek to be objective in translating with what they think is only a minimal amount of their own interpretation. This fails because all translation is interpretation. They have already stacked the deck by translating in a manner that results in unnatural and awkward English. This gives the impression that the language of the Bible is inherently awkward. The translators don't intend to give that impression, but it is an inevitable side effect.
This reminds me of a friend who wanted to be objective by not swaying her children to any particular religion, so she just didn't introduce them to any religions so that they would be completely objective and untouched by her influence. The problem with this logic is that this stacks the deck by giving an overwhelming exposure to the absolute absence of all religions. In both her case and in the case of W4W translators, it is utterly impossible to be objective.
By not exposing her child to the list of options, her inaction teaches her child that taking action in making a religious choice is not a pressing issue. If it was important, why didn't she mention it? In the same way, W4W translators try to leave the interpretive options up to you, but if you don't even know what the list of options looks like, how can you make a choice?! How would you even know that there's any need to choose?
On the other hand, T4T does not even try to claim complete objectivity in their translations. Yet they stack the deck by consistently emphasizing clarity and readability of the basic thought of a passage. They make the basic point more readable by eliminating or rewording the details that are relevant, yet not central to the main meaning.
Yet the T4T approach does not go far enough in breaking from objectivity. Both of these styles rigidly pick one consistent priority over the other. In areas where minor details like word order are nothing but a distraction from the main point, the W4W approach falls short. In areas where the nuances actually rather crucial, the T4T falls short.
The best approach, I argue, is just to be openly subjective and not set hard and fast rules. Focus on getting across the facets of meaning that you, the translator, consider the most important in any given sentence. The hard-and-fast rules of either W4W or T4T are necessary for translations made by teams, since semi-objective rules help reduce the bias of everybody's (different) subjective opinions. If not for hard-and-fast rules, translation committees would never reach enough consensus to make any decisions and the translation would never get made.
I don't want to come down too hard on other translations. My translation approach is best applied when only one to three people collaborate on the translation. Since I am doing this independently, the only things keeping my personal bias in check are the valuable feedback I received for revising the first draft and my constant comparison to other translations. So, my translation and commentary will have less regulation to keep my personal bias in check, but at least I'm honest about it. Since I'm just one guy working with no hard and fast rules, people from both camps will likely have mixed feelings about this work.
I keep four loose rules:
1. Try to translate the same Greek word as the same English word. Really try not to have more than two renderings for each Greek word. (For φρονέω I had to have three: "think," "have mindset," and "show concern.")
2. Try to bring out style and flavor when this can be done without significantly detracting from the basic meaning. Making the basic meaning somewhat more difficult is fine. The translation will be explained by a commentary, so it doesn't
3. The Bible isn't always clear/poetic/polite, so I don't have to always be clear. The NIV translates at the 8th-grade reading level. Since I am writing a commentary right along with it, I feel free to use longer sentences and a higher vocab (if that captures Paul).
4. Italics and bold (used sparingly) indicate emphasis, as God intended.