Simon Pease continues his exploration of inconsistencies in biblical translation, especially as regards the Jewish people
UNCONSCIOUS BIAS
In our previous article (“No Plan B”, linked at the foot of this article) we considered how the Jewish people, having been “entrusted with the very words of God”, have done an extraordinary job of preserving the Hebrew Scriptures.
The New Testament too, is an exceptionally well-preserved Jewish document. However, problems can arise in translation. Not only does the modern translator need a profoundly good knowledge of the original language, including colloquialisms and expressions of that time, but they also require a sufficient knowledge of the cultural background and historical context to properly understand and convey the author’s original intent. Furthermore, the translator’s personal theological framework will also inform their translation, consciously or subconsciously.
One of the biggest dangers for Gentile translators is to approach the text with an existing bias towards Replacement Theology, which falsely teaches that the literal promises God made to the Jewish people have been transferred spiritually to ‘the Church’. The historical consequence has been centuries of “Christian” Jew-hatred, paving the way for the Holocaust, and on a spiritual level, blindness on the part of believers to the many Israel-centric signs of the Lord’s pending return. Inaccurate translations help to perpetuate this cycle.
CENTURIES OF CONSCIOUS BIAS
I previously argued that Peter’s powerful message at Pentecost laid responsibility for Messiah’s death on Jews and Gentiles alike, but that most translations are worded in a way that downplays Gentile involvement. Since then, I stumbled across a short YouTube clip which claimed that a passage in 2 Corinthians 3 had been mistranslated in most Bible versions except for the King James. No explanation was offered, but my curiosity was stirred. My investigation proved sufficiently interesting to expound on here. So, let us consider the passage in question, first in the NIV (including the broader context), and then with the point of difference highlighted in the KJV.
“Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:12-18 – NIV)
And now the King James:
“And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.”(2 Corinthians 3:13-16KJV)
WHOSE VEIL REMOVED, AND WHEN?
Which version is correct? Fortunately, in this case, the matter seems to be straightforward, because the differences are entirely linguistic – “hearts” or “heart” (plural or singular), “whenever” or “when” (conditional multiple events or unconditional singular event), “anyone” or “it” (plural or singular), and “turns” or “shall turn” (present or future tense). Not being a Greek scholar, the Blue Letter Bible came to my rescue and I discovered the King James Version to be correct on all counts! So, what is going on here? I believe these apparent mistranslations are caused by translators rightly seeking to make words consistent with the overall context of the passage, whilst nevertheless being constrained by their personal theological disposition. To explore this assumption, let us try very roughly to paraphrase this passage as translators might possibly have approached it:
The Spirit contrasts with the letter of the law and brings freedom to approach God boldly. The Jews have a veil over their hearts when they read the Torah because they reject Jesus. But we Christians, by turning to Jesus, have this veil removed and are being transformed into His likeness.
In principle there is nothing wrong with this, except for the awkward fact that mistranslation is required in order to connect the train of thought smoothly. So, is there an alternative paraphrase? Let us consider one that preserves the linguistic integrity:
The Spirit contrasts with the letter of the law and brings freedom to approach God boldly. The Jewish people have a veil over their collective heart when they read the Torah because they have not yet turned to their Messiah. However, one day they will do so and the veil will be removed. The Spirit brings freedom. We who are believers in Jesus already have this veil removed and are being transformed into His likeness.
GUARANEED FUTURE EVENT
The key to understanding the passage in a way which is grammatically accurate is to note that the pronoun “it” refers (as is normally the case) to the noun which precedes it – the “heart” singular. Therefore, when in future the collective Jewish heart shall turn to the Lord, the veil will be removed. Evidently this is a prophetic statement about a guaranteed future event. Logically, this is also consistent, because Paul states that this veil prevents Jewish readers from seeing their Messiah in their own Scriptures! Whilst it is true that Gentiles also have a veil over their hearts which needs to be removed, in this context it is not the specific veil to which the passage explicitly refers.
Can we follow the Biblical principle of providing a second witness to testify in support of this second interpretation? Again, in this case the answer is “yes”. Paul, the writer of Corinthians and Romans, states in chapter 11 of the latter that:
- It is easier for God to graft Jewish people back into a Jewish olive tree as natural branches than Gentiles, who are unnaturally grafted in.
- Israel (the Jewish people collectively) is in a temporally state of unbelief and hardness towards the Gospel.
- God still loves the Jewish people on account of His covenant with them through the patriarchs (even before He gave them the Torah).
- God’s gifts and His calling regarding the Jewish people are permanent.
- God will deliver the Jewish people, turning them away from their sins and having mercy on them.
He then follows this with joyous outburst of praise to God, unparalleled in any of his other letters!
Paul’s claims are not simply a matter of personal revelation, but founded on previous prophecies, such as Jeremiah chapter 31:
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
JOY OF THE NEW COVENANT
God made the new covenant with the Jewish people – not the church, as many Gentiles believe – and as their husband God remains faithful to them, despite their collective infidelity. He will at some point yet to be revealed remove the veil over their minds when they read their written law, and by doing so renew their hearts through regeneration by His Spirit. That this shall take place is guaranteed. Case closed!
** See endnote **
As a final thought, it is sad that Gentile Christians are taught to believe that they are the “new Israel” when the New Testament says nothing of the kind. In the Romans 11 passage we referred to, Paul uses “Israel” to mean the Jewish people, and in 2 Corinthians 3:13 (quoted above) “the children of Israel”.
What a tragedy that the NIV translates the latter as “the Israelites” – a term which disconnects them from modern Jews, either in Israel or the Diaspora, implying that the Lord has assigned the Jewish people to the garbage can of ancient history. Worse still, the Replacement Theology implicit in this NIV usage is largely to blame for the on-going veil preventing many Jewish people seeing Yeshua as their Messiah. They associate Him with institutional Christianity, its Inquisitions, its pogroms, and much more besides.
Yes, there is a veil over Israel, but there is also one over the collective heart of much of Christendom – the veil preventing them from understanding God’s continuing promises and purposes for His Jewish people. Paul warned against its consequences, with stern words to his Gentile readers:
“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in His kindness.”(Romans 11:21-22)
Finally, the awkward question remains as to why a translator from hundreds of years ago would be more faithful to the original Bible text than our modern translators with all the tools and information available to them? Unconscious bias?
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Endnote:
As we consider the New Covenant it is worth pointing out that Christians very often sever Jeremiah 31:31 from its biblical context and use it as a catch-all to ‘prove’ that we Christians are the fulfillment of the specific verse. Some have called this “verse-mining”, where we dig out biblical nuggets and make them say things they were not intended to do in the original context. If we look across Jeremiah chapters 30 to 33 the phrase “the days are coming” and its derivatives/diminutives are used eleven times. Arguably ten of these eleven remain as yet unfulfilled and in our future, assuming they are understood to be literal prophecies. Why is it then that 31:31 is singled-out and determinedly be assigned the property of ‘the church’ and fulfilled in our today? A matter to ponder ……
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Simon Pease’ previous article – “No Plan B”:
https://christiancomment.org/2024/10/03/no-plan-b/
Simon Pease is author of “ Ruth – A Prophetic Parable – How does the story of Ruth relate to you today?”: https://christian-publications-int.com/Ruth_A_Prophetic_Parable.html
Recent Comments