I was going through the Scripture readings for today this morning in the "Daily Roman Missel" I still have. It's a thick black book of liturgy, prayers, and readings for every day of the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church. I bought it in preparation for the priesthood oh, about eighteen years ago now, used it for Sunday Mass for several years, and still keep it for sentimental reasons, not least of which because it contains a record of those people whom I baptized. Now, it's held together with duct tape, and the pages are bulging from use and water damage which happened years ago. It's one of those books that's just been a companion through everything since that time.
This morning, the last verse in the Psalms (34:23) reading caught my attention. In the Missel it reads, "The LORD redeems the lives of his servants; no one incurs guilt who takes refuge in him." (NAB) Either on a hunch or prompted by the Spirit, I'm not sure which, I looked up the same verse in the King James Version (34:22, the KJV doesn't include the title as the first verse), and curiously it read, "The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate." After reading the extreme difference in translation, I then did what I normally do and went to the Hebrew text followed by the Greek LXX and then the Latin.
The Hebrew text reads, literally, "YHWH redeems [the] soul of His slaves and all the ones taking refuge in Him do not suffer for their guilt." The Latin and Greek were something along the lines of "...and all those hoping in Him are not guilty" (Vulgate) and "...and all who hope in Him will absolutely not trespass." (LXX)
I checked a couple of other translations, and they were all some combination of either the Latin reading or the Hebrew depending on who was doing the translating.
My question then becomes, why did the KJV editors and translators so badly deviate from the original texts? According to what I've been able to research, they didn't copy it from Tyndale as Tyndale didn't translate this Psalm.
I have to wonder if the reason for the deviation has to do with theology. At least, this question has crossed my mind. In my experience, the theology of a translator tends to color the way he or she views the original text, and they render it in a way which aligns with that theology whether or not the text actually does. Frequently as well, translators simply don't understand what the text is talking about, even if they understand the use of language, because they're not at the same point of spiritual development as the prophets and Apostles who wrote it.
The Hebrew text says that Yahweh redeems or ransoms the soul of His slaves, and all those who take refuge in Him will not be held guilty. I'm not sure how much more clear a message of forgiveness and mercy for those who turn away from their wrongdoing and "take refuge" in Him there can be. Notice too that there is no mention of sacrifice here as being necessary for that being held guiltless, only taking refuge in Him.
Jesus said, "Remain in me and I in you." The word used in the Greek literally means to "stay put," or more to the point, "make your home." If that's not a similar concept to taking refuge, then I don't know what is. "Shelter in place" in Him might be another way of saying it.
Another part of the readings today was from Luke 18 and concerned the pharisee and the tax collector. In Luke 18:14 there's an interesting use of words here. It reads, "I say to you, this one [referring to the tax collector] went down having been justified [made right] into his house as opposed to that one [referring to the pharisee]..." All the tax collector did was sincerely repent and acknowledge that he had screwed up. He said, literally, "God, be conciliated [or appeased] with me, the screw-up." Again, no mention of sacrifices being made.
The only thing God has ever truly required for forgiveness and mercy is that we recognize the wrong we are doing, and turn away from it. Even Abraham was made right in God's sight, not from sacrifices for sin, but just because he believed Him. The sacrifices which were prescribed in the Torah were already a cultural thing, and were meant to help deal with the guilty conscience, but they were for human psychological benefit, not because God wanted animals slaughtered. We wanted a physical guarantee of forgiveness, a contract which said we would be forgiven, rather than trusting His word that we would be. And in the ancient world, the blood of animals was used to sign contracts.
Those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ are forgiven because that belief and following presume a recognition and confession of one's screwing up. One agrees with God about his error, and God is faithful and right to forgive and to cleanse them of all wrongdoing. One takes refuge in Jesus Christ, and then His Spirit works within that person for him to be able to not screw up, and not cause harm, just as He was without error.
It was never about the requirement of blood, but about the turning to God and sheltering in place in Jesus Christ.
* * *
Regarding the verse, "For without the shedding of blood, there is no remission":
It's Hebrews 9:22, and in context, the author is describing what had to happen according to the Torah, not necessarily the laws of spiritual physics. The phrase itself doesn't occur in the Torah, or in the rest of the Old Testament as a requirement for forgiveness whereas turning away from one's wrongdoing and turning to God as a requirement for forgiveness is all over the Old Testament, and both Jesus and John the Baptist preached for people to repent and turn around rather than go and make sacrifices. It's clear in many places in the Old Testament, that God gets fed up with people making sacrifices instead of turning away from their wrongdoing; that is, sinning and then expecting Him to forgive because they spilled the blood of an animal. He says very clearly that such things abhor Him.
Also, as Paul wrote, Abraham lived long before the Torah was ever written. He had no Ark of the Covenant, no Holy of Holies, no prescribed altar of sacrifices, Day of Atonement, or any of it. There is no mention of him ever sacrificing an animal for the forgiveness of sins. Instead, we read about him slaughtering animals to sign a contract with God. We read about him nearly offering Isaac in sacrifice to God, but there is no mention of what the sacrifice was for except as an offering which was requested. Abraham simply trusted what God had said, and God counted it as good enough for Him. This is also true of Isaac and Jacob as well, who themselves also did not have the Torah. They only trusted God with what He said.
Going back to Hebrews, the thrust of the author's argument is that blood sacrifice could never "take away" sin. Notice, he doesn't say "forgive," he says "take away" which is a different matter. Only the death of Jesus Christ could take away sin, and this is accomplished through union with Him in His death, and submission to His Spirit whereby He who is without sin acts and speaks through us, and there is no sin found in our actions and words. Thus, sin has been taken away through Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment