I Can Say It Better than God Did, VI

I hadn't seen this kind of thing for so long that I forgot that it existed. Then I saw it again, recently. Bad practices just never seem to go away. The minister about to read from the Scriptures first pauses, and then takes a few moments to explain to the people what the Scriptures are about to say to them. No doubt this device is supposed to help the listeners tune in, as it were, and pay closer attention; then they will retain what they have heard all the more. So what's wrong with that, you ask? Nothing, really, if what you are about to read is on the same level of significance. But if what you are about to read happens to be the Word of the Living God, then an introduction gains for itself the unsavory effect, however unintended, of reducing the significance and power of what follows. Imagine, if you will, having someone introduce a speaker at a conference, or the President of the United States, or any dignitary, by not only telling us the person's credentials, but also by telling us what he is about to say. It does not highlight, but denigrates, the importance of the speech itself. How much more is this the case when it comes to Sacred Scripture. What you subliminally but very clearly say when you preface the words of God with your own explanation of them is that your words and His words are on the same level; or worse, that your words are on a higher level, necessary to explain His. When on the contrary the explanation comes in the sermon, as it should, then you are leaving the Scriptures alone as the authority on which you preach.

When we say that the Word of God is like a double-edged sword, that it has the power of salvation, that it is full of the Holy Ghost, we belie what we say if we feel constrained by a need to engage in personal ad-lib introductions.

Consider the introduction John the Baptist gave for Jesus: He introduced Him with the words of the prophet: Prepare ye the way of the Lord. So also, when we introduce the Holy Gospel, we do so by the words of Moses and the Prophets (Old Testament reading) and the words of the Apostles (Epistle reading). In this case we use God's words to introduce God's words, and then, as everyone rises from his seat for the Gospel, we acknowledge that the most significant and powerful words of all are the words of Christ.

I can say it better than God did, V.

To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:10)

Here we have a beautiful and concise description of St. Paul’s exercise of the Office of the Keys. His offer of forgiveness is apostolic, which means that, as our catechism puts it so well, it is “as valid and certain in heaven also as if our dear Lord had dealt with us Himself.” But here it is even clearer than that, for St. Paul’s offer of absolution is “in the person of Christ.” What a marvelous declaration of the Office: he is bold to say that his exercise of it is not merely in the stead of Christ, but in His person (Greek: prosopon). Wow, that’s going a bit far! Imagine if such a thing were found in a new hymn or document sent to an LCMS doctrinal reviewer! It would never pass!

No wonder the Calvinists who translated the New International Version could not stomach such a bold assertion. So they had to change this just enough to make it acceptable to their sensitivities. The NIV has thus re-rendered it thus:

If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake.

Leave it to the Calvinists (and some pretty blind Lutherans who follow their lead) to misunderstand the Office of the Holy Ministry. By the way, all you Lutherans who like to get misty-eyed about how great the English Standard Version is, here’s how the ESV has followed suit:

Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ.

In the presence of Christ? Oh sure, that’s what prosopon means! Not! It’s a simple Greek noun, and it doesn't mean sight or presence. It means person. Deal with it, fellas. And quit messing with the Sacred Scriptures.

(Thanks, and a tip of the hat to Rev. Chad Kendall.)

I can say it better than God did, IV.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38.

It's been reported that our squeamish Baptist friends like to rephrase this logion, because of the uncomfortably clear indication, given by the little word "for," that Baptism forgives sins. So there has been some re-rendering of the passage, thus: "Repent, every one of you, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, because you've already received the forgiveness of sins."

You at least have to give them credit for trying, I guess. Hat tip to Kelly Klages for this one.

I can say it better than God did, III.

But now the righteousness of God without hte law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all whem that believe. - Romans 3:22 KJV

Thanks now to all the helpful exegetes who have somehow ignored the genitive case ("of Jesus Christ"), here and elsewhere (Gal 2:16, 20, 3:22, Eph. 3:12) to make us better aware that it is our faith in Jesus, rather than Jesus' faith, that renders us righteous. Might it not be, though, that faith of Jesus is not a reference to Jesus' faith, but to the faith is of Jesus, i.e., about Jesus, having Jesus as its object, the faith which is about Jesus? Faith of Jesus is then not meant to be a reference to anyone's condition of believing, but rather to the content of faith (for the Latin lovers among us, that's fides quae creditur), thus defining what the true saving faith is. Which, of course, our experts have missed. Ah, what would we do without experts?

I can say it better than God did

The road to hell is paved with good editorial intentions. I have nothing against editors (I know one pretty well), but sometimes the editor goes a bit too far, as when he feels the need to correct the Scriptures so that they don't offend or lead people astray. It seems innocuous at first, but actually it's quite offensive. It's saying the Biblical writer, though moved by the Holy Ghost, should have been more careful. Now the all-wise editor has come to the rescue, in effect correcting God. I'm sure there are some of you who have examples of this folly. If you can think of one, put it in as a reply, or send it to me privately (put "I can say it better than God did" in the subject line) and we'll see if we can keep the list going. I'm providing the first two here.

I can say it better than God did, I:

I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. (Psalm 138:1)

That's KJV, but the New International Version (still the favorite of our good friends in the Wisconsin Synod) prefers this:

I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart; before the "gods" I will sing your praise.

Notice the quotation marks around "gods"? Well, isn't that helpful? We wouldn't want Bible readers to get the impression that David is saying there is more than one true God, now, would we. So the NIV editors put in their quotes, and even add "O LORD," so that nobody gets confused. The problem is that Biblical Hebrew knows no quotation marks. It's just elohim, which means "God." Context has translators rendering the word in the plural (gods) though it would normally be translated in the singular as a reference to God. That part is proper translating, but as for the quotation marks, they're awful. Are the editors saying David should have been more careful? No one has had a problem misunderstanding the KJV version for hundreds of years, to say nothing of the inspired Hebrew. So here's the first instance of I can say it better than God did.

I can say it better than God did, II:

We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. - I Corinthians 1:23.

I've seen more than one Lutheran church pick up on part of this logion, "we preach Christ crucified," and make it their slogan, but with a little editorial fix: "We preach Christ crucified and risen."

Oh yes, we do need that corrective. Heavens, we wouldn't want people to think we deny the resurrection, after all! Have to make that fix, for sure. But St. Paul didn't. So, did he mess up here? Should he have said it with the "and risen"? Actually, if he had, he'd have been messing with his whole point. It's not the resurrection that is foolish to the Greeks, but the cross. Nor would the Jews stumble over the resurrection. But never mind. Nice to know we Lutherans can do better than the Apostle here. Which in effect is saying I can say it better than God did.