Relationship between Theology and Worship

 Nick Norelli responded to a question about whether theology affects doing church, specifically worship.

Here was my initial response. From a Lutheran perspective, theology and worship are intimately connected. Thus, justification by grace through faith is not only the pillar by which the church stands or falls, it is the heart of worship (or strictly “divine service” – meaning God serves us through Word and Sacrament, and we respond in service with praise, prayer, and singing).

This also means that our theology and worship are Christocentric, while also being Trinitarian. The invocation (”in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) is Trinitarian and Baptismal. Note that Lutheran worship traditionally begins with those words, and not the common Protestant one (”We make our beginning in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit), because we see worship as not only God centered, but God-initiated. The God who baptized us is the God who calls us into to his presence to receive his gifts in the Word and in the Lord’s Supper. The invocation is matched by the Trinitarian benediction (Numbers 6:24-26). This is not a conclusion but a sending with the promise that all that God has bestowed in the service now goes with the person. This matches the use of Numbers 6 as the blessing before the Israelites begin their extended journey.

Of course, there is much more to this, which I hope to address in the near future.

The Passive/Receptive Life

Oswald Bayer wrote an excellent book, Theology The Lutheran Way. Here is an insightful comment from that book.

What does the passive/receptive life (vita passiva) or the passive righteousness (iustitia passiva) mean, systematically for faith and theology? The righteousness of faith is passive in the sense that “we let God work in us by himself and we with all our powers do nothing of our own.” “Faith, however, is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born again of God, John 1[:12-13]. It kills the old Adam and makes us altogether different, in heart and spirit and mind and powers” (cf. Deut. 6:5). Faith then is entirely God’s work and not a human achievement. We can only “suffer” it. Christian righteousness, which is passive, is entirely opposite to works-righteousness. We can only receive it. We do not work but let another work in us, namely, God. Christian righteousness is not understood by the world. It is hidden from people trapped in themselves and want to boast of their own achievements. It is hidden from those who not only want to make something of themselves but who want to be self-made people.

Oswald Bayer,
Theology the Lutheran Way, Lutheran Quarterly Books, edited and translated by Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007 [orig. 1994]), p. 24.

Quick update on NLT Chronological Bible

I have been on two trips the past ten days (one flight, one auto) in which it was inconvenient to take the Chronological Bible. But with the references, in the back, I was able to take a convenient sized Bible (NLT Compact, leather edition). So, I was able to continue the readings, even though I didn’t have the specific resource. But Sunday night I was able to begin again with the “box.” Thanks again for a handy resource.

Review: One Year Chronological Bible (NLT)

Two notes: 1. Special thanks to Laura Bartlett at Tyndale for sending me preview copies of the NLT SB and the Chronological Bible. 2. My review of this resource will not relate to the NLT as a translation, but rather the NLT edition as published in this format.

Appearances can be deceiving. When I opened the box, I was disappointed and thought this is not a resource I would regularly use. Other reviews suggested using it for travel. I travel a lot, but this clearly was not something I could see myself using on flights. The size, especially the thickness (2”), and overall dimensions (5.5” x 7”) fooled me into assessing this as an awkward resource; I don’t have any other book like it, except a smaller version for Rockwell paintings. Even a quick glance at the font (an important factor in Bible readability) reinforced my initial reluctance to consider this edition.

So what happened to change my mind? My goal was to look at it, maybe use it for a few days and then put it away. I set it on the coffee table beside my recliner and started the readings for the day. In that setting I found the size to be just about right (however, I still will not take it with me on trips). Not only that but I began to appreciate the design aspects of this Bible.

The Scripture readings are based on one view of chronology relative to when each book was written. While I might disagree with a few time relationships, the presentation is defensible and well done. Contrary to other such attempts, this edition incorporated the Psalms into their historical contexts. This works well both ways – it shows the liturgical element of life events in the historical books (perhaps unintentional side affect) and the historical context of the liturgical life. Also, the editors inserted in chronological order Biblical references of later writings that refer to the specific event (i.e. Gen. 11 and 1 Chronicles 1, p. 18). And it was good to see Job between Genesis and Exodus, often conjectured, but seldom seen in practice; nice to see in this edition. The Scripture references (verse numbers) were small and not noticeable to me most of the time. Well done.

Comments on specific features:

General Timeline (pp. A15-18): very helpful because it puts the date and specific event with the page number. The page reference in the Introduction on p. A10 is wrong because it indicates that the Timeline begins on p. A9, instead of p. A15.

One Year Reading Plan: obvious use for a chronological Bible. Each day is marked in the text to aid the reader without turning to another page. Better integrated and less intrusive than I have seen in other such Bibles.

Transition Statements: Thankfully these are short and hence non-intrusive to the reading plan (this isn’t a study Bible, after all), and in a different but readable font. These little notes prove useful in reading the text quickly and just getting enough information to cause the reader to think, “Yes, okay, that helps me understand the background”.

Chronological Dating: Dates are included in the subheadings throughout the text, very well thought out design to aid the reader.

Daily Reading Guide: This feature complements the in-text reading guides. At the back of the Bible, each day is listed with Biblical readings by text reference. For a comparative reading, this would assist the person to use a traditional Bible. Well done.

Scripture Index: helpful tool for traditional comparisons and quick reference. Personally I wouldn’t find much use for it in this type of Bible.

Verse Callouts: For some people these generate a sense of “speaking to me.” In this kind of Bible reading plan, I find that it is not all that helpful. But that is a personal choice.

Historic Christian Symbols: “Each month a new symbol is introduced with an explanation of its significance” (p. A11). The publishers commissioned an artist to provide these, and each page of the month’s reading has that symbol. They are faint, so they don’t overwhelm the text. Coming from a liturgical and visually oriented background, I find these kind of assets of great value in teaching the faith and engaging all the senses. Well done!

Overall Assessment:

While I study the Biblical text primarily in the original language texts, I use English translations routinely for all aspects of my devotional and pastoral tasks. Thus, I try to expose myself to several translations in different settings: personal reading, family devotion, sermon prep, teaching prep, publication prep, etc., rotating the translations used. Thus, one year I might read ESV for one part, GW for another, NAS for another. This does not mean I always think a specific translation is best, but such a process gives me a feel for how well a translation works in a specific context.

In 2009, I have decided to use two new resources. For devotional reading, this One Year Chronological Bible (24/7 NLT) will be my resource (while at home). I find the Bible’s arrangement, aids, and ease of use worthwhile to encourage me in this type of reading.

For family devotions for the past few weeks, we have been using The Books of the Bible (TNIV), also a Chronological reading Bible (which requires its separate review!).

NLT Study Bible – Review 2

This review has taken longer due to the amount of material surveyed. Obviously even now, this review only looks at a sampling.


In my first review I noted many positive features. Here the focus is on the content. The book introductions provide enough information to grasp the general thrust of the book. The setting is perhaps the most important factor because this gives the reader a chance to identify time and place; obviously this blends well with the included timelines. Depending on the level of someone’s knowledge of the Bible, it seems that the introductions to the prophetic books are particularly useful, otherwise the prophetic message can “hang suspended in time.” Of course, no study Bible can prevent misuse of the message, but at least an appropriate context for the original audience sets the writing in place.

The character and theme inserts were well done and add perspective when studying. But see below for the negative side of such a feature.


As I began using the SB I noticed several features that were less than satisfactory. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is the scarcity of cross references. I realize that comprises had to be made (font size, other material, spacing, etc.). But given that this is a study Bible, my expectation is that extensive, but good cross references are at the heart of the study.

The footnotes were adequate. But I found two issues that showed 1. inconsistency between footnotes and, 2. inconsistency between the footnotes and the NLT text.

1. Lord’s Supper: The footnote for Matthew 26:26-29 (p. 1633) lists three positions regarding the Lord’s Supper. But the second option really includes two separate options. The Reformed view is “spiritual presence” and refers to “the real presence of Christ.” Often the word “symbolizes” or “represents” is used to refer to the words of institution (as noted in footnote Mark 14:24, p. 1686). However, the Lutheran view (“in, with, and under”) refers to the real presence of Christ’s body and blood, but the word “consubstantiation” is not used by Lutherans. So there are four views.

Further, while the theology of the footnote authors/publisher is expected to show, evenhandedness would have done better in Luke 22:19-20 (p. 1755). The footnote only gives the “symbolic” view (“using the bread and cup as symbols of his body and blood”), but with no reference to the Matthew/Mark passages for alternative views. A simple note could have been included: “For further discussion see parallel passages (p. 1633, 1686).”

2. Justification: In Romans 3:22 NLT (p. 1897) has: “We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.” I have always opposed such a translation, because it makes faith as the active agent rather than the passive receptor, contrary to the emphasis in the Greek. This rendering changes the emphasis from the Greek, which is on the righteousness of God. Interestingly the footnote gets it right, “the way God puts people in a right relationship.”

The wealth of information contained in the character and theme inserts provides value for the student. However, because they take so much space I found that they were actually hindering my study. I would have preferred to have a companion booklet with all the character and theme inserts (separate sections for each). This would have allowed the additional space to be used for both cross references and for more footnotes. A study Bible needs to focus on tools that help study the text, not be a systematic theological resource.

One further surprise concerns the Ephesians study helps. There are many good statements that summarize the theme and aspects of the letter. But I found no hint about the importance of the phrase “in Christ” (or equivalents: “in him”); these occur 37 times in the short letter. Yet the footnote for Eph. 1:1 (p. 1998) notes the letter has “frequent emphasis on “the will of God” (which occurs only 6 times total!). In contrast, “in Christ/in him” occurs 13 times in chapter 1 alone. This seems like an oversight that should be rectified for the next edition.


Any Study Bible that provides a service for understanding God’s Word is worth considering. So, how does this stack up against other Study Bibles I have and use? The layout, maps, timelines, etc. are some of the best I have seen. Will I use this Study Bible? Not as my primary one, but I frequently examine it to see how both the NLT renders the original language text and to compare footnotes and study aids with other sources.

The Lord’s Prayer

The first liturgical text I will examine is the Lord’s Prayer, found in variant forms in Matthew 6 and Luke 11. Probably along with Psalm 23 no text of the Bible is more well known. This is great, but it also raises concern when looking at translations to flow within the liturgy. Liturgically, the Lord’s Prayer is used in every worship service; for communion services, it occurs within the “Service of the Sacrament” immediately following the Sanctus (Lutheran Service Book [LSB], p. 195-196), and for non-communion services at the end of the Prayer for the Church (LSB, p. 193/196).

It appears that the liturgical development of the Lord’s Prayer became a synthesis of the two accounts in Matthew and Luke. For instance, in Matthew the text reads, οφειληματα, “debts” but in Luke the text reads αμαρτιας, “sins” or sometimes “trespasses.”

Of course, the primary textual issue concerns whether the ending is in fact part of the original text (“For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. “). For this study, I will not pursue that point, except to note that the evidence suggests that the ending was not original to the texts in Matthew/Luke, but became canonical because of its incorporation into the liturgy as such. Interestingly, within Lutheran liturgy, there is recognition of the difference between the ending and the rest of the prayer in the “Service of the Sacrament”, in which the pastor prays/chants the prayer itself, and the congregation responds/chants with the last line as an appropriate doxological response. Musically, theologically, and emotionally a very powerful combination! For me this is the most significant musical memory of the entire liturgy from 50+ years ago.

The first rendering is from the traditional liturgy as (LSB, pp. 196), which follows the KJV.

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Matthew 6:9-13


    Our Father in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done
    On earth as it is in heaven.
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our debts,
    As we forgive our debtors.
    And do not lead us into temptation,
    But deliver us from the evil one.
    For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.


    “Our Father in heaven,
    hallowed be your name.
    Your kingdom come,
    your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.
    Give us this day our daily bread,
    and forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.


    “‘Our Father in heaven,
    hallowed be your name,
    your kingdom come,
    your will be done
    on earth as it is in heaven.
    Give us today our daily bread.
    Forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from the evil one.


    Our Father in heaven,
    may your name be kept holy.
    May your Kingdom come soon.
    May your will be done on earth,
    as it is in heaven.
    Give us today the food we need,
    and forgive us our sins,
    as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
    And don’t let us yield to temptation,
    but rescue us from the evil one.


    Our Father in heaven,
    help us to honor
    your name.
    Come and set up
    your kingdom,
    so that everyone on earth
    will obey you,
    as you are obeyed
    in heaven.
    Give us our food for today.
    Forgive us for doing wrong,
    as we forgive others.
    Keep us from being tempted
    and protect us from evil.


    Our Father in heaven,
    let your name be kept holy.
    Let your kingdom come.
    Let your will be done on earth
    as it is done in heaven.
    Give us our daily bread today.
    Forgive us as we forgive others.
    Don’t allow us to be tempted.
    Instead, rescue us from the evil one.

Apart from the “understandability” of the words, I am focusing on the use of this within the context of liturgy. I think that God’s Word is the easiest to understand in contemporary English, although NLT and CEV would be second. Obviously, the NKJV most closely reflects the KJV and liturgical text. In the case of the Lord’s Prayer, however, there is another factor to keep in mind, the synthesis of two different texts. So a proposal to the Lord’s Prayer to modernize it would go like this:

Liturgy Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Notice that this involves changing only five words, but retaining the cadence of the original liturgical text. This means that those who learned the traditional wording and those who used the “modernized” text can speak it together without an interruption or disturbance. I have experimented with this, having ½ of the congregation speaking the traditional words and the other ½ of the congregation speak the modernized text (then we switched sides). They were pleasantly surprised that it worked so well and they appreciated that either would be acceptable.

This might be a help for those who look for a translation that will engage everyone in the memory of Scripture texts, especially those who learned using the KJV. I found that when getting the congregation to memorize together, the NKJV worked the best.

Liturgical Translation – Cadence and Psalm 136

Psalm 136 Refrain

As a beginning point for liturgical use of Scripture, I begin with cadence/rhythm of language. Specifically I explore how English can provide an appropriate spoken cadence, while still doing justice to the Hebrew.

Derek Kidner offered these words at the beginning of Psalm 136. “Our versions of this psalm are mostly cumbersome: they lack the swiftness which should rid its repetitions of their tedium. The six Hebrew syllables of the response have their happiest equivalent in the Gelineau version of Psalm 118:1 (117:1 in Gelineau’s numbering): ‘for his love has no end.’”[1] I have included several translations of that refrain with the number of syllables in parentheses.

  • KJV for his mercy endureth for ever. (10)

  • For his lovingkindness endureth for ever. (12)

  • NASU For His lovingkindness is everlasting. (11)

  • NKJV For His mercy endures forever. (9)

  • ESV for his steadfast love endures forever. (10)

  • WEB for his loving kindness endures forever. (11)

  • NIV His love endures forever. (7)

  • TNIV His love endures forever. (7)

  • NIrV His faithful love continues forever. (10)

  • NLT His faithful love endures forever. (9)

  • CEV God’s love never fails. (5)

  • NCV His love continues forever. (8)

  • HCSB His love is eternal. (6)

  • NJB for his faithful love endures for ever. (10)

  • GW because his mercy endures forever. (10)

  • AAT/Beck His mercy endures forever! (8)

  • NJP His steadfast love is eternal. (8)
  • Obviously, one concern is how to translate הסד, ranging from “love” (1) to “lovingkindness” (4). As Kidner notes, if the context of the Psalms are noted, then the concept of “covenant faithfulness” can still come through in the translation “love.” A second problem concerns whether the Hebrew supports the idea of “endures” or is better rendered with the implied “is”; which is Kidner’s choice. finally how do we translate לעולמ as “forever” or “eternal” or “everlasting,” which adds 3 or 4 syllables. Also, do we translate the conjunctions כי and לֹ, and if so, how? For those that translate כי, it is either “for” or “because”; about half of these translations leave it untranslated. Yet it seems necessary within the context of antiphonal reading.

    My concern isn’t as much on the theological choices in each case (there is a definite need for that!), but rather how does this affect the oral cadence of the choices. In order to evaluate each, I had to speak them out loud several times to see whether the cadence was consistent and sustainable. The CEV is shortest in terms of syllables, but the possessive “God’s love” seems almost awkward in such a short sentence, especially after a few repetitions. The more formal equivalent (word-for-word) translations include the conjunction “for,” which is needed and seems appropriate. On the other hand, the desire to expand on הסד also increases the length of the response, which seems contrary to the sense of the Hebrew six-syllable structure.

    For those translations remaining, NIV/TNIV have a good sound, but lack the conjunction, which loses something of the connection of the response to the preceding statements. Also, both use “endures” (as do most of the translations), rather than “is.” Surprisingly, HCSB provides the same six-syllable structure of the Hebrew “ His love is eternal.” The one draw back is that the first three words are monosyllabic, whereas the last word is trisyllabic. This means that the syllable count is correct, but is a little jarring to the oral sense of the response. It appears that Kidner’s approval of Gelineau is the best, “for his love has no end.” In this case, the six-syllable structure is maintained, and each word is monosyllabic.

    Now, obviously not every passage in English will be able to sustain the same syllable count as the Hebrew. But in the case of an oral response, there is something to be said for the terseness of this translation. As a suggestion, perhaps the reader can experiment with a group of people. Use three or four of the translations (each with a different syllable count, i.e. don’t use NIV and TNIV, or KJV and ESV) and antiphonal speak 6-8 verses. Then try using Gelineau’s translation. See what impact it has on the group. Notice whether the interest flags with the longer response line.

    As we explore liturgical use of translations, we can see the importance of oral cadence in that process.

    [1] Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: A Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, edited by D. J. Wiseman, Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975, p. 457.