![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bible translation geekery ahoy.
My church was studying the New Testament book of 1 Peter. And a friend of mine was the service leader (person guiding the congregation through the service) and she mentioned that her favourite verse was in 1 Peter: "And above all else, love deeply; for love covers a multitude of flaws." That's the New International Version - one of the more common international translations. Recently, however, I got a new translation which is called 'The Second Testament'. Rather than being translated for 'US Grade Ten comprehension', they went for something like 'nearest accurate word, not necessarily easing the style of language'. It's awkward and difficult to understand, and very much not intended as a be-all, end-all translation; it's supposed to supplement your standard text.
And I desperately needed something like it, because I've been studying and reading the bible for close to fifty years and my brain is so familiar with some of the texts that it just...slides over the words. The awkwardness of the Second Testament catches at my thoughts, and allows me to think more carefully about what the original writer meant to the original readers, and to reconsider the context of what was written and how it might be helpful in a modern context. (Some things are, some things are not.)
The phrase "love deeply" is translated in The 2nd Testament (T2T) as "stretched love". And I adore (love deeply?) this translation of the phrase.
Because 'love' is often denoted as a feeling. A sensation. An urge or a passion or a drive. But 'to love stretchingly' puts it into a new context: the idea that 'love' might be uncomfortable: that it might require extension of oneself beyond comfort, that it should stretch to reach out?
Women are familiar with this: we make ourselves uncomfortable for others - sometimes out of guilt or shame or duty, but often because we care about other people and we want to show that care, and putting ourselves out is a way to do that. The 'who makes the magic happen' question that's rolling around social media right now in the wake of a seasonal celebration that was most likely organised, ordered, maintained, and cleaned up by the women of the household? That's a "stretched love" - someone went to effort to do things for those around them.
It seems, however, a lot of men are not. Many of them could not even stretch themselves to buy a single gift for the person in their life? Or, in one case that I saw, she dropped hints and he bought the present...then left it on the bed for her to wrap and arrange...
"Love" as a feeling requires nothing of you but 'feels'. And that could be the satisfaction of knowing you don't have to stir a finger...or the comfort of knowing when your dick stirs there's someone who'll let you stick it in her. To me, that's not love.
A terribly cynical perspective (but, I fear, rather disturbingly accurate for far too many men) I've seen in the last six months is: "Your husband doesn't love who you are. He loves what you do for him."
In the 90s, there was a Christian band called 'DC Talk', who sang rock and rap about Christian themes, and one of their big songs was called 'Love is a Verb'. Which is very much a thing in my circles of faith: guys who do actually do things for their wife and families.
Unfortunately, this mentality doesn't seem to be everywhere, and also may not actually be as common as I've witnessed in my friends' relationships.
I've always thought 'love' demanded some degree of discomfort. But not just 'discomfort' (which one can sit in and just be uncomfortable) but...'stretching'. A deliberate and considered extension of oneself into uncomfortable spaces for the comfort and solace of the loved one. To "love stretchingly", in a way that requires effort, that implies exercise, that suggests muscle and discipline and strength?
That's something else.
My church was studying the New Testament book of 1 Peter. And a friend of mine was the service leader (person guiding the congregation through the service) and she mentioned that her favourite verse was in 1 Peter: "And above all else, love deeply; for love covers a multitude of flaws." That's the New International Version - one of the more common international translations. Recently, however, I got a new translation which is called 'The Second Testament'. Rather than being translated for 'US Grade Ten comprehension', they went for something like 'nearest accurate word, not necessarily easing the style of language'. It's awkward and difficult to understand, and very much not intended as a be-all, end-all translation; it's supposed to supplement your standard text.
And I desperately needed something like it, because I've been studying and reading the bible for close to fifty years and my brain is so familiar with some of the texts that it just...slides over the words. The awkwardness of the Second Testament catches at my thoughts, and allows me to think more carefully about what the original writer meant to the original readers, and to reconsider the context of what was written and how it might be helpful in a modern context. (Some things are, some things are not.)
The phrase "love deeply" is translated in The 2nd Testament (T2T) as "stretched love". And I adore (love deeply?) this translation of the phrase.
Because 'love' is often denoted as a feeling. A sensation. An urge or a passion or a drive. But 'to love stretchingly' puts it into a new context: the idea that 'love' might be uncomfortable: that it might require extension of oneself beyond comfort, that it should stretch to reach out?
Women are familiar with this: we make ourselves uncomfortable for others - sometimes out of guilt or shame or duty, but often because we care about other people and we want to show that care, and putting ourselves out is a way to do that. The 'who makes the magic happen' question that's rolling around social media right now in the wake of a seasonal celebration that was most likely organised, ordered, maintained, and cleaned up by the women of the household? That's a "stretched love" - someone went to effort to do things for those around them.
It seems, however, a lot of men are not. Many of them could not even stretch themselves to buy a single gift for the person in their life? Or, in one case that I saw, she dropped hints and he bought the present...then left it on the bed for her to wrap and arrange...
"Love" as a feeling requires nothing of you but 'feels'. And that could be the satisfaction of knowing you don't have to stir a finger...or the comfort of knowing when your dick stirs there's someone who'll let you stick it in her. To me, that's not love.
A terribly cynical perspective (but, I fear, rather disturbingly accurate for far too many men) I've seen in the last six months is: "Your husband doesn't love who you are. He loves what you do for him."
In the 90s, there was a Christian band called 'DC Talk', who sang rock and rap about Christian themes, and one of their big songs was called 'Love is a Verb'. Which is very much a thing in my circles of faith: guys who do actually do things for their wife and families.
Unfortunately, this mentality doesn't seem to be everywhere, and also may not actually be as common as I've witnessed in my friends' relationships.
I've always thought 'love' demanded some degree of discomfort. But not just 'discomfort' (which one can sit in and just be uncomfortable) but...'stretching'. A deliberate and considered extension of oneself into uncomfortable spaces for the comfort and solace of the loved one. To "love stretchingly", in a way that requires effort, that implies exercise, that suggests muscle and discipline and strength?
That's something else.
Tags: