By Apprising Ministries special correspondent Rob Willmann of Shepherd’s Heart Bible Study
This is a repost of an original article on Shepherd’s Heart Bible Study

In this expanding game of accusation and denial as to whether WycliffeSILFrontiers changed their translations to remove or re-translate the phrases ‘Son of God’ and ‘God the Father’ some revealing statements have been made.

First, at ChristianPost.com, there’s an article called ‘Wycliffe Reaffirms It Did Not Delete ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ From Bible Translations’ dated February 7, 2012.

The last line in the article states: “In the past couple weeks, both Wycliffe and SIL released statements officially denying that their translations headed for Islamic countries removes familial terms to describe God and Jesus.”

The statement Wycliffe is referring to is found here:

Response: 1/31/2012

Wycliffe is not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as “Son of God” or “Father,” from any Scripture translation. Erroneous information and rumors on the internet have recently raised questions concerning this issue.

Wycliffe remains committed to the same objectives we’ve held sacred for 80 years: accurate and clear translation of Scripture. Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation. (Online Source) 

That sounds rather reasonable and straightforward. Yet critics provide examples of these mistranslations. Not only that, but reread this sentence: “Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms.”

But translated as what? How is Wycliffe translating them? Are they truly translating them as Jesus as the Son of God? (To Wycliffe’s credit, they do have an article “The Wycliffe Global Alliance Speaks to Issues of Contextualization“. (Thanks to Daniel Neades of BetterThanSacrifice.org for pointing out via email that Wycliffe.org and .net are different organizations.)

The next sentence states: “The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.”

OK. I am fine with them preserving the eternal deity of Jesus Christ. Absolutely!

But when they state “the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father”, what do they mean? What KIND of relationship? Is He (Jesus) the Messiah? the Son? If they translate the word as son, how so? To me it’s rather unclear.

And to make matters worse, Wycliffe came out with this official statement today (2-7-2012):

Wycliffe USA is grateful to all those who have expressed their questions and concerns regarding reports that we have been removing “Father” and “Son” from certain Bible translations, particularly in Muslim cultures. Wycliffe USA is absolutely committed to translating the divine familial terms (Father, Son, and Son of God) clearly and accurately. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.

While we have never intentionally sponsored a translation that neglects to properly communicate the divine familial terms, some observers have raised concerns about whether our methodology has consistently met our goal. We are listening to those concerns and are seeking God’s guidance as we re-evaluate our methodology and investigate to ensure that our commitment to accurate and clear translation is being reflected in every project. We are engaged in meaningful conversations with partner organizations, constituents, and church leaders to evaluate our standards, and expect to be prepared to issue a more complete statement soon. Thank you for your patience and prayer as we seek to fulfill our mission to make God’s Word accessible to all people. (Online Source)

It’s on the same website as the other statement.

But I want to point something out. Why would Wycliffe use very strong language in their first statement, such as

“Wycliffe is not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as “Son of God” or “Father,” from any Scripture translation…”

and use a much weaker stance in the newest statement. The NEW statement says:

“While we have never intentionally sponsored a translation that neglects to properly communicate the divine familial terms, some observers have raised concerns about whether our methodology has consistently met our goal. We are listening to those concerns and are seeking God’s guidance as we re-evaluate our methodology and investigate to ensure that our commitment to accurate and clear translation is being reflected in every project.”

Uhm, hello? If you’re NOT omitting or removing the familial terms, and if the translation being produced is accurate with the historical language(s), and the familial terms ARE in the translations, then why come up with the second statement?

Watch this video again:

Notice the difficulty such translations are causing these Christian missionaries to Muslim areas. The idea of C5 and C6 outreach simply doesn’t seem to match with Scripture. (Click here for a basic graph of what the C1-C6 scale of contextualization looks like.)

I don’t normally post comments from other locations, but I believe this is quite an eye opener:

I offer this perspective as a former Muslim, myself. If the Bible is inspired by God, and He chose to specifically describe Himself and His tri-unity in terms of “Father”, “Son”, and “Son of God,” , far be it from us to change them to make the Gospel more palatable to Muslims. Such terms were equally offensive and problematic for Jews in the 1st Century were they not? And yet Jesus used them anyway and God inspired His apostles to do so. And still there was explosive church growth amidst the Jews in the 1st Century. Why should Muslims of today be any different? Indeed, the very fact that God is Jesus’ Father, Jesus is God the Son, and God can be called our Father is what is so attractive about the Gospel. To even flirt with changing, let alone removing, such language does violence to the text and will have precisely the opposite effect than what is intended. Muslims will not see the beauty of the Godhead and they will be reinforced in their long-standing, but incorrect belief that Christians are at liberty to tamper with God’s revelation to suit their needs. God forbid that it should ever be so. (Online Source)

Christianity Today, in an article a year ago (Feb 2011) “The Son and the Crescent” had this sobering section:

“As much as Christian theologians have used the term and concept of ‘Word’ throughout the history of theology, they did so with the understanding that this eternal Word was also a person who was [the] eternal Son,” Abernathy wrote. “It is the eternal sonship that makes sense of calling him the eternal Word, but when that sonship is removed, the Trinity as we know it dramatically changes. There is no eternal Father-Son relationship, only an eternal God-Word relationship, which is conceptually very foreign to the doctrine of the Trinity as it has always been understood. The historic Christian understanding of the Trinity essentially collapses.”

Another response published in St. Francis Magazine came from J. Scott Horrell, professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and adjunct professor at Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary, in Amman. He worried that when translators substitute other words or phrases for “Son of God,” readers miss out on the theological meaning intended by biblical authors, particularly as they draw connections between the Testaments. He argued that when Jesus used Father-Son language, he reached “the deepest levels of divine disclosure.”

“Both terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ for God are repugnant to the Muslim,” Horrell wrote. “Yet in the Bible and Christian faith these words take on more meaning than mere metaphors or titles, rather they become the divine names that most disclose the divine relations. Without the Son there is no Father, and without the Father there is no Son …. [I]t must be asked, if ‘natural’ terms replace ‘Son,’ ‘Son of God,’ and even ‘Father’ in Muslim-sensitive translations, then what other language allows us access into this intimate reality?” (Online Source)

Is it just me or is there a real lack of biblical understanding on the Trinity? You see, here in the U.S. we are being pressured into accepting a modalist’s poor profession of Trinitarian belief as orthodox. Could this be because most Christians in the US have a low view of Scripture, theology, and the Trinity specifically?

It’s my opinion that a low view of Scripture, and orthodox theology in some circles in the States is now influencing our missiology when it comes to reaching Muslim people groups.

It certainly appears like syncretism is going on! Don’t believe me? Watch this trailer for an upcoming movie called “Half Devil Half Child”

After all, if TD Jakes can be a Trinitarian at the drop of a hat and be embraced by the evangelical world, then why can’t the familial relationship between God the Father and God the Son be removed from the Bible in order to make the Scriptures more palatable to Muslims?

And finally, let me raise this point. Wycliffe.org’s earlier statement is: “Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.”

And therein lies the confusion. How can Wycliffe say they’ve never been involved in such a translation when there is this article: “Holding translators accountable“:

Through several days of conversations between attendees in Istanbul who had been deeply divided on the matter, the participants agreed on new translation standards. The problem with translating “Son of God” and “God the Father” literally in Muslim contexts, translators say, is that it implies that God had sexual relations with Mary. Some translators have turned to non-literal renderings, like “beloved one of God.” The new Wycliffe/SIL standards agreed to in the Istanbul meeting read, “[I]n the majority of cases a literal translation of ‘Son of God’ will be the preferred translation,” but the standards allow for “an alternative form with equivalent meaning” if the literal translation “would communicate wrong meaning.?… The alternative form must maintain the concept of ‘sonship’” (see sidebar below).

Wycliffe and SIL acknowledge backing translation work that didn’t render “Son of God” and “God the Father” literally. The new standards tighten what non-literal renderings are acceptable, they say. In the 1990s, translators were “experimenting” with some alternative terms like “Messiah of God” or “Christ of God,” said Russ Hersman, a Wycliffe USA senior vice president. “What we would say explicitly today: They don’t carry the meaning of sonship, so they’re not adequate,” he told me.

Such terms, Hersman said, are “outside the borders.” Hersman estimated that of 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 “employ some alternate renderings” for the divine familial terms. One example Hersman gave of an alternate rendering would be translated in English as “beloved son of God” or “beloved one from God.”

“To them it says, ‘Ah, that means a divine family relationship, a divine social relationship, but not a procreative relationship,’” Hersman said.

The stricter standards aren’t satisfactory to some in Wycliffe, though. At least two families decided to leave the organization after the Istanbul statement, because they felt the organization wasn’t changing its position, leaving loopholes for different renderings of “Son of God.” (Online Source)

I would again urge anyone reading this to consider these Scriptures in light of what’s posted above:

(Isaiah 9:6) For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

(John 19:7) The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”

You see, even the Jews at the time were offended by the title Son of God. Like I said before, we should never attempt to be offensive, but whatever gave us the idea that we could remove the offense of the Gospel?

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on a cross for our sins, so that we could be made right with God the Father. We are renewed by the power of God the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary, Jesus’ mother, who was a virgin.

Final Thoughts: I would love for WycliffeSIL or Frontiers to send me a bible written in Arabic or one of the languages in question. I have a couple of Muslim friends, and I would be happy to put this to the test. In the meantime, the testimony of Christian witnesses to Muslims on foreign soil sounds solid to me. What say you, Wycliffe?

(1 John 4:14-15) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

Further Reading:
To Wycliffe, SIL, And Foundations: Is the Gospel an Offense, and Dare We Change It?
Controversy at Wycliffe?

The original appears complete with a comments section for you to join the discussion right here.

See also:

NEW BIBLE TRANSLATIONS TO DROP ‘FATHER’ AND ‘SON’

JOHN PIPER RECOMMENDS BOOK BY EMERGING CONTEMPLATIVE LAUREN WINNER

SETTING OPEN THEIST GREG BOYD STRAIGHT