Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everyone. May you have a blessed and joyful day as we celebrate the Saviour's birth once again.

Christmas Eve

Having been out for some last minute Christmas shopping last night at Braehead Shopping Centre it struck me how sad it is if the only thing we take away from Christmas is a pile of presents received and an overdraft for the presents given.

Great though the festivities are, they are worthless compared to knowing Jesus Christ.

Christmas Eve is a strange day. The last day of advent. The final day of anticipation. And yet it is strange. Strange to be anticipating the birth of a child that already happened two thousand years ago. Yet in a sense isn't that what we do each year? Really we're only anticipating the day of celebration of it, but as we do that in some way we do go back to Bethlehem and imagine the events we read about every year in the Gospels.

And aren't we filled with that sense of awe and wonder and thankfulness that "He came down to earth from heaven / who is God and Lord of all." What greater love could God show for us? "Sacred infant, all divine / what a tender love was thine / thus to come from highest bliss / down to such a world as this."

Tonight, in the freezing cold and the darkness, all over the country, all over the world, his followers will gather once again to mark the start of his birthday celebrations. If you can manage, why not go along yourself to a church near you and join in later today?

Lectio Divina

An interesting piece about the Lectio Divina method of reading Scripture (though this is from a Roman Catholic perspective): http://ow.ly/3tEmx

Why Wright is Right

Interesting post on City of God blog: Why Wright is Right: http://ow.ly/3oazZ

The Story of the Church

The Story of the Church
A. M. Renwick
IVP

I recently read this very old edition of this book, which is a whistle-stop tour of Church history from apostolic times through to the 1950s. I understand that a later edition with a co-author is now in print that takes in later years of church history, but this was an old secondhand copy I picked up dating from the 1960s.

I have to admit I haven't read a lot of church history, except for the Reformation period, and I found it very interesting to learn more about the period from the first century through to the middle ages. There was much that I really didn't know about this period. For example, I hadn't realised that for centuries the Celtic Church regarded itself as quite separate from the Roman Catholic Church and not under papal authority.

As a summary of nearly two thousand years of church history in under 200 pages, this book was really excellent.

The author, A. M. Renwick, was a professor of church history at Free Church College in Edinburgh.

Paul for Everyone: Romans

Paul for Everyone: Romans (2 Vols)
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006

Tom Wright's For Everyone series fills a necessary gap that is very difficult to fill. The books are neither simply devotional reading nor are they commentaries (technical or otherwise). Instead they attempt to be readable by any Christian and get to the heart of the message of the book or letter it deals with. They are the kind of books that are easy to read as they have Wright's own New Testament translation printed at the beginning of each chapter.

Paul's Letter to the Romans is one of the most important sections of the New Testament, for there Paul gives the richest and fullest treatment of his gospel. Tom Wright is an acknowledged expert on Paul and Romans in particular. As well as this popular-level work he has written a major commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter's Bible series.

That's all positives about the book. The negative for many will be the fact that Wright is a proponent of the still-controversial New Perspective on Paul, and NPP and some of Wright's other more idiosyncratic views dominate his interpretation of Romans. This is not to say his insights have no validity, but rather than the reader needs to be aware of where Wright is coming from.

His treatment of Romans comes in two volumes dealing with chapters 1-8 and then 9-16 respectively. This alone lets the reader know that this is a much fuller treatment of Paul's extended argument in this letter than Wright has devoted to almost any other New Testament letter.

I found Wright's treatment of the letter to be very readable and understandable for the most part. There are times I think he raises more questions than he answers. I suppose for readers who feel like that, there is always the big commentary.

Much of what Wright says here helped allay my fears about some of his doctrines. For example, in this book Wright makes it quite clear that though he believes in present justification by faith alone and in final justification on the basis of the whole life lived in the Spirit, he is very clear that the present verdict always anticipates the same final verdict. In other words, Wright's doctrine does not undermine assurance in tender Christian believers. For Wright it is impossible for someone to be justified now but finally lost. It was interesting that I read these books at the same time as Wright was clarifying his position at the ETS meeting where he clarified that final justification on the basis of works really means "in accordance with works". This brings Wright much closer to the evangelical mainstream as reformed theology has always affirmed the final judgment is in accordance with our works. The Westminster Confession of Faith xxxiii.1 says as much:

"God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil."

I thought Wright's treatment of chapters 1-6 and chapter 8 were excellent. I was glad to see he argues for 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 and his handling of Abraham in Romans 4 is excellent too. However, I remain unsure about his interpretation of Romans 7. My own view has always been that it represents the 'normal' Christian life and our battle with sin. Wright takes a very different view and sees the "I" of chapter 7 not as the apostle Paul describing his experience either pre-conversion or post-conversion (my view) or post-conversion but pre-baptism of the spirit. In fact it is not Paul at all, but a rhetorical device to describe Israel's history under the law. I didn't find this convincing to be honest. But I will read the big commentary and see more of his arguments there.

Similarly in the second volume, I enjoyed most of Wright's treatment, however I think he was very weak in his handling of divine election in Romans 9. Wright fails to see that though it describes God's choosing of the elect within Israel (and the elect have responsibility and not just blessings), this doesn't mean the chapter does not have a more general application to how God chooses any of his people.

At times, these books seemed much more technical than Wright's handling of the gospel narratives in other books in the series. It is not a simplistic treatment of the letter, but then Romans is not really a book that can be handled with simple devotional sentiments. Paul's argument is so tightly constructed that it won't really lend itself to that.

I enjoyed the books very much. Few preachers would fail to benefit from reading this. In this series, the "hooks" that Wright uses to draw the reader into his argument are a masterclass in gaining the reader's or hearer's attention. The ones used in Romans are no exception.

Three Reasons to Keep First-Past-the-Post for General Elections

I don't usually do politics on this blog, but I've decided to start doing so when I feel like doing so. The reason being that faith and politics shouldn't be separated in the Christian's life. The one should flow out of the other.

In May 2011 the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether to keep the present First-Past-The-Post voting system or to change to a system called "The Alternative Vote" which is a form of proportional representation.

Many people will no doubt be in favour of the change on the basis that the current system is unfair and many people's votes "don't count" under the present system as there are so many "safe" seats.

There are a number of points that could be made in response to this. The first thing is that it's simply not true that many people's votes don't count. Essentially that is the argument of the losers in any election. Fact is that more people wanted another candidate. All votes count. But not everyone wins. Secondly, there's a skewed way of looking at things going around as if so-called "safe seats" are predetermined to go to one party or another. That is not true either. A seat is only safe because a large number of real people exercise their democratic right to vote for the party that usually wins that particular seat. But there is nothing predetermined about who will win in a "safe seat". There is no reason a new political party could not make an impact under the first-past-the-post system. In 1900 there were hundreds of "safe" Conservative and Liberal seats and there were only two Labour MPs elected. By 1929 Labour were largest party in the Commons with 287 seats.

There's a lot of pro-PR propaganda around. To counter that, here's three good reasons why we should not vote for PR in this country, shown by three countries that have PR (all beginning with "I" as it happens):

1. Italy - It is almost inevitable under a PR system that we will have permanent coalition government. Italy has had over 60 governments in the 65 years since the end of the Second World War. PR has a tendency to produce unstable governments because they are always coalitions. By contrast, first-past-the-post tends to produce clear election results and a government with a clear mandate to implement its programme. A hung parliament under FPTP like happened in 2010 happens once in a generation; under PR it would be the result of EVERY election.

2. Israel - PR gives seats in parliament to small, extremist parties. Under PR we have already seen extreme left wing parties such as the Scottish Socialist Party elected to the Scottish Parliament. At the other extreme, PR for the House of Commons would almost certainly see a few BNP MPs elected. That's not all. Under PR, small parties thus elected achieve an unproportional amount of power. There are some countries where the third party (in the UK that would be the Liberal Democrats) with maybe 15-20% of the vote are permanently in government, alternately supporting whichever of the big two parties come first in an election.

3. Ireland - PR systems can be incredibly complicated. In Ireland they use the Single Transferable Vote. Most people cannot understand the intricate mathematical formulas that are required to work out exactly how votes are distributed and who is elected. The election result takes days to work out under STV. FPTP is easy to understand and usually delivers a clear result on election night itself.

I'll be voting "No" in the referedum next year.

The New Perspective on Paul

I'm becoming more attracted to the NPP (New Perspective on Paul).

Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).

N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.

"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.

If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.

As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.

This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??

A Clarification from N. T. Wright

The ETS meeting was important. N. T. Wright clarified his position that future justication is "in accordance with the whole life lived" rather than "on the basis of the whole life lived."

The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.

The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF

Simply Christian

Simply Christian
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006

Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.

Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.

The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book. 

Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?

Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!

Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.

Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.

Peril in Paradise

Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science and the Age of the Earth
Mark S. Whorton
Authentic Media 2005

This is the second book I've read recently advocating an old earth creationist (OEC) position. The author is an engineer who has worked for NASA and is also well-known as a Christian apologist.

Whorton takes a stronger line against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) than Snoke in his book I would say. As well as advocating the day-age view and arguing against YEC on a number of grounds, he spends much of the book contrasting what he calls the "Perfect Paradise Paradigm" (basically YEC) with another theological position he calls the "Perfect Purpose Paradigm". He comes close to saying at some points that the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is actually teaching a sub-biblical view of God, creation and especially evil. For me this part of the book was not a great success.

Other parts of the book are more successful. All in all I think he both hits and misses his targets in the course of the argument. Without doubt, he shows up many of the weaknesses of YEC teaching, and establishes a number of important OEC points. Just occasionally I think he oversteps the mark and gets a bit confused in his thinking. This is especially evident in his treatment of how suffering was (in Whorton's view) always part of the created order and part of the creation God saw was "very good". 

In my view Snoke's book is a better constructed argument and succeeds in its aims without resorting to the occasionally odd bit of theology that Whorton allows to creep into his argument.

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
David Snoke
Baker Books 2006

This book does exactly what is says in the title - it presents a biblical case for an old earth interpretation of Genesis One.

Although the author presents a case in favour of the day-age interpretation, the book is also very useful to any Christian who has concerns about Young Earth Creationism and for whom it would be useful to know that there are alternatives accepted by conservative, Bible-believing Christians. The author is a professor of physics and an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America.

As a proponent of the framework view I would take issue with some of Snoke's exegesis of the key texts where he argues that the days of Genesis One are intended to be understood as long geological ages presented in chronological order. However his critique of the so-called 'creation science' underpinning Young Earth Creationism is uncompromising, and his presentation of the evidence in favour of an old earth is strong and his analysis of the key 'animal death before the fall' issue is also powerful.

He also spends a chapter discussing Noah's flood and considers whether or not the flood required to be truly global or merely global in terms of the world view of the time.

In an important final chapter, Snoke points out a number of key 'non-negotiables' in terms of biblical Old Earth creationism including the historicity of Adam and Noah, the fact that all life was created miraculously by sovereign acts of God, and the fact that one day Christ will return and there will be a new heaven and earth.

This book would be useful valuable to any Christian reader perhaps most to Christian students and scientists and new converts who may be wondering if they really have to swallow Young Earth Creationism in order to believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour.

The value of the book is increased by the inclusion of study questions at the end of each chapter.

Comparing the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011

I've said before that there are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation. You can read my thinking on the following verses here.

Here are the results for the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011 on the test verses.

1 Samuel 8:16

All three follow the Greek Septuagint here over the Hebrew text while noting the Hebrew reading in footnotes. (0.5/0.5/0.5 out of 1)


Matthew 10:8

All three follow the NA/UBS critical text in the New Testament. (1.5/1.5/1.5 out of 2)


Genesis 1:2

All three have the "Spirit of God" which I believe is correct. (2.5/2.5/2.5 out of 3)


Genesis 19:24

All three translate accurately. (3.5/3.5/3.5 out of 4)


Ruth 2:20

Here all three translate the key Hebrew term differently. The old NIV has "Kinsman-Redeemer". TNIV has "family guardian" and the new NIV has "guardian-redeemer". For me the old NIV is much to be preferred here. (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 5)


Psalm 25:14

All three go for "The LORD confides in those" where I prefer "The friendship of the LORD is with..." (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 6)


Psalm 92:7

All three miss the point of the verse which is not "though the wicked spring up...they will be destroyed" but "when the wicked spring up...it is only that they may be destroyed forevermore." (NASB) (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 7)


Proverbs 16:4

Here the old NIV is the only one that correctly says that the LORD works out everything for "his ends". The other two weaken this to everything working out for "its end". Very different view of God's sovereignty here. (5.5/3.5/3.5 out of 8)


Isaiah 7:14

All three are correct in translating it as "virgin" here. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 9)


Ezekiel 33:11

I would have preferred "does not delight in" here, but all three have "take no pleasure in." (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 10)


Jonah 3:3

All three interpret the phrase "of three days' journey" as "a visit required three days" (NIV84) and "it took three days to go through it" (TNIV and NIV 2011). It would be better left ambiguous in the translation rather than choose one possible meaning for the reader. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 11)


Haggai 2:7

I understand this as a Messianic prophecy. Only the old NIV allows the reader to interpret it correctly. The other two versions change it from "the desired of all nations" (which allows either interpretation) to "what is desired by all nations". (7.5/3.5/3.5 out of 12)


Micah 5:2

All three don't translate this verse as well as they could. They talk about the Messiah's "origins" being from "ancient times". Whereas the eternal Son of God's "goings forth" have been "from everlasting" (KJV). (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 13)


Matthew 2:10

All three translate well as "overjoyed" but the don't translate that literally here: "rejoiced with exceeding great joy" (KJV) (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 14)


Matthew 16:18

All three translate well, but have misleading footnotes simply saying "Peter means rock". This indicates that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the Church. However a different word is used. The footnote could have been much more accurate. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder. (8/5/5 out of 15)


Matthew 19:9

The old NIV had "marital unfaithfulness". Here both the TNIV and new NIV are more accurate with "sexual immorality". (8/6/6 out of 16)


Mark 2:19

All three translated idiomatically which helps the reader understand the meaning of the Jewish idiom. (9/7/7 out of 17)


Luke 4:22

All three have "spoke well of him" but the Greek is more accurately rendered "bore witness to him". Not everyone spoke well of him, but they did speak about him with approval. This may be all that Luke meant. (9/7/7 out of 18)


Luke 10:34

All three are literal here but misleading. They sound as if the bandages are put on first, then oil and wine poured on. Actually the order would be the opposite - oil and wine poured on then bandaged. (9/7/7 out of 19)


John 3:16

All three have "one and only" for monogenes. This is not the best translation, but it is okay. Unfortunately they all also keep the traditional "whoever believes" which is misleading. It should be "everyone who believes." (9.5/7.5/7.5 out of 20)


Acts 5:30

Only the old NIV is literal with "tree" here. The others change this to "cross." All get the wording clear enough so we know Jesus was killed by being hanging him on a tree/cross. (10.5/8/8 out of 21)


Acts 20:28

All three translate this verse correctly. (11.5/9/9 out of 22)


Romans 3:25

All three have "sacrifice of atonement" here rather than propitiation. Only the old NIV has an excellent footnote explaining what propitiation means. The others refer to the mercy seat instead. (12/9/9 out of 23)


Romans 8:28

All three opt for the weaker rendering that God "works for the good" rather than "works all things for good". (12/9/9 out of 24)


Romans 9:5

All three translate this very strongly in favour of Christ's deity. (13/10/10 out of 25)


1 Corinthians 7:1

The Greek literally says it is good for a man "not to touch a woman." Old NIV has "not to marry", the others have "not to have sexual relations". The new translations are better, but it might have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader decide. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 26)


1 Corinthians 7:36

All three have "the virgin he is engaged to" but literally the verse says "his virgin". So they are interpretations rather than literal translations (even though I think they are all correct). It would have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader or preacher decide what it means. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 27)


2 Corinthians 5:14

None of the three pick up on the fact that the second "all" is "this all" or "all these" so that those for whom Christ died are the same set of people as have died to sin (i.e. Christian believers). (13/10.5/10.5 out of 28)


2 Corinthians 5:16

All three talk about "worldly point of view" rather than the literal "according to the flesh" that Paul actually wrote. This is very interpretative in a translation. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 29)


Ephesians 3:9-10

All three fail this test by punctuating the sentence so that Paul's meaning cannot be that God created all things so that though the church the wisdom of God might be made known, even though this is a legitimate interpretation of the verse. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 30)


Philippians 2:6-7

Here the TNIV and NIV 2011 are much preferable to the original NIV. Their translation that Christ did not consider his equality with God something that he should take advantage of is absolutely excellent. All three have "made himself nothing" rather than "emptied himself" which is so easily misunderstood. I prefer "made himself of no account" but the NIV family version is also good. (13/11.5/11.5 out of 31)


Colossians 2:8

Only the old NIV translates as "the basic principles of the world" where the others have "elemental spiritual forces of this world". The trouble is that I understand Paul's phrase is wider than "spiritual forces". It includes all the principles of this world, not just spiritual ones. (14/11.5/11.5 out of 32)


2 Timothy 3:16

All three have "All Scripture is God-breathed". This is very literal and correct although I prefer "All Scripture is breathed out by God" which is better English as in the ESV. (14.5/12/12 out of 33)


Hebrews 2:9

All three have "tasted death for everyone". Literally it should be "for all" instead. (14.5/12/12 out of 34)


1 Peter 3:3-4

All three translate this verse well and convey the meaning clearly for the reader in English. (15.5/13/13 out of 35)


2 Peter 1:1

All three are accurate here. (16.5/14/14 out of 36)


2 Peter 1:20

All three are acceptable translations here even though they are slightly interpretative. The TNIV and NIV 2011 add "of things" after "interpretation" but this is not significant. (17.5/15/15 out of 37)


1 John 3:9

All three say that no one born again will "continue to sin". This is simply not true - or none of us are born again! Much better is something like the NASB which says we don't "practice sin". It happens but it is not our purpose in life any more. (17.5/15/15 out of 38)


Jude 4

All three miss the point about reprobation in this verse. (17.5/15/15 out of 39)


It would appear from this survey that the new NIV 2011 is very like the TNIV and as far as this albeit unscientific sample of verses is concerned, both are a tiny step backwards from the 1984 NIV, though all three remain very similar translations. Of course a different selection of verses might show something different. There are undoubtedly improvements in some places in the new version over the old one. In Romans for example, the restoration of the more literal "righteousness of God" - a key phrase in Paul's argument - which leaves room for more than one interpretation is preferable to the old NIV's "righteousness from God" which may be correct as an interpretation but not as a translation.

There are other places where the TNIV and NIV 2011 reflect advances or changes in scholarly opinion about certain words and phrases. I also have no problem with gender neutral changes where these are justified by the Hebrew or Greek. In the end there is little to choose between the three versions. As with any translation people will have quibbles here and there. That is the case with the NIV 2011. It was the case with the TNIV and it was the case when the NIV itself first came out.

Because they strike a good balance between readability and accuracy for the most part, the NIV remains a good choice as a person's primary bible, along with more literal translations like the ESV and NRSV and more dynamic versions like the NLT and Good News Bible.

Darwin on Trial

Darwin on Trial
Phillip E. Johnson
Inter-Varsity Press 1993

This book is an interesting critique of Darwinism written by a professor of law in the early 1990s.

Johnson does not attempt to put forward any particular view of the origin of life - certainly not overtly - and he appears to have little love for Youth Earth Creationism in particular. If anything he appears to argue for a form of theistic evolution and an old earth.

But rather than outlining what he thinks is a better explanation than scientific naturalistic Darwinism, he concentrates on why Darwinism (or rather neo-Darwinism) fails as an acceptable scientific and logical explanation for the origin of life on earth. Johnson takes the philosopher Karl Popper's thoughts - himself no Christian theologian - who pointed out that a theory that purports to "explain everything" actually by definition explains nothing - and applies it to Darwinism.

The trouble is that for so long Darwinism has been accepted as the orthodox scientific view that evidence contradicting or not fitting the theory is ignored or explained away (because the theory must be kept sacrosanct), while evidence in support of evolution - however tenuous, is treated as if it confirms everything the theory claims. Time after time Johnson documents examples of this kind of thing in scientific writings in books and journals like Science in the USA and Nature in Britain.

Johnson notes that, as Popper suggested, one key aspect of any claim that something is scientific truth is it is falsifiable. Indeed this is constantly used by scientists to dismiss creation science as mere "pseudo-science" since the claims of Young Earth Creationism are not falsifiable. Yet, as Johnson shows time and time again, Darwinism itself fails this test, since its proponents start out with a philosophical commitment to naturalism and the theory itself as the only acceptable explanation for how nature works and how life came to exist, including human life. By definition, and by philosophical bias, anything supernatural or theistic is excluded. When proceeding from this basis, nothing is really allowed to challenge the basic foundational presumptions on which the Darwinian edifice is constructed. In this way, Darwinism has more in common with pseudo-sciences like Marxism and Freudianism than it has with sciences like physics or chemistry.

In a succession of chapters that form the heart of the book and Johnson's argument he deals with how each of the following areas contain problems for Darwinism that cannot properly be ignored:

- The key concept of natural selection
- The fact of mutation
- Fossils
- Vertebrate sequence
- Molecular evidence
- Prebiological evolution

He then comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is a philosophy and even a faith itself that comes to conclusions based on its naturalistic assumption rather than on observable facts which would be accepted by the majority of theists too. To give just one example, Johnson accepts that microevolution is an observable fact - that there is descent with change in nature - the famous light and dark moths observations in Victorian England being a documented instance - but he does not accept that such observations prove macroevolution - that all life comes from a common ancestor, that the whale and the bat for example come from a common rodent-like mammalian ancestor. Instead, such a claim is a philosophical belief arrived at because there is no other possible explanation in a naturalistic universe. While such a belief is reasonable given the philosophical underpinnings on which it is made, yet it is no more reasonable than a theistic or even creationist conclusion from the same facts given theism's or creationism's underpinnings.

As someone who has grappled with many of these issues for a long time as a Christian, I found Johnson's book very challenging and interesting reading. Anyone who thinks he can be dismissed as a "fundamentalist" or "young earth creationist" had better read the book - he is neither of these. Those most frequently quoted in the book are Darwinians like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. There is practically no theology or biblical material in the book at all.

In the concluding sentence of the book Johnson says of the battle of philosophies between Darwinism and Creationism (in its widest sense embracing intelligent design or theistic evolution) "in the end reality will win". To me the challenge of the book is to those who unthinkingly accept Darwinism as "the truth" to subject the theory to criticism and see where that takes you. After all, if it is true, what is there to fear from criticism and examination? Or could it be that in reality the atheistic/agnostic cart is before the evolutionary horse and the tail wags the dog?

Complete in Christ

Complete in Christ: Rediscovering Jesus and Ourselves
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Marshall & Pickering, 1989

This is a short book of only 113 pages. I've had it on my bookshelves for years but had never got round to reading it until now. I only wish I'd read it years ago because it is worth its weight in gold. I haven't read anything else that manages to excite about a doctrine that is under emphasised in evangelical circles - namely the humanity of Christ - and through that doctrine it corrects, comforts and challenges on what it means to be human and what it means to live life as a Christian.

If that sounds like a lot to pack into a short paperback, that's probably because it is. The treatments of the various subjects dealt with are short and pithy. It is more a theological sketch book than a finished theological tome. Relatively few biblical texts are dealt with in any detail and there is almost no interaction with other theologians.

However, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in power.

The introduction sets the tone. It is entitled: "Are Christians human?" This is by no means a foolish question. Cameron rightly points out that in evangelical churches, we have a tendency to so emphasise the deity of Christ - as we wage apologetic battles against liberal heresies - that we tend to downplay (albeit accidentally) the fact that he really was human with all that entails. In the process, as a by-product, we tend to have such a high view of what a Christian should be that we inadvertently expect Christians to be more superhuman than human. This leads to guilt, fatigue, failure and sometimes despair. Instead, Cameron pleads for "a fresh realism in our Christian living."

Cameron then goes on to address the implications of the fact that God became flesh in the incarnation in chapters 1 and 2. Here he criticises evangelical theology in general for the way that Jesus' humanity and his earthly life and ministry are under examined. Too often, he feels we reduce the incarnation to no more than providing a sinless candidate for the atonement, whereas the incarnation has much more significance than this (though it does also have that significance, Cameron is quick to point out). He accuses the evangelical church of an inadvertent Docetism.

Having cleared the ground that Jesus is fully human and pointing out it matters that he was, Cameron then moves on to discuss how this insight should affect the Christian life.

He deals in chapter 3 with the whole area of the mind and intellect in humanity. This passage was very powerful as Cameron points out that life is not just for doing so-called "religious things". Important though activities like worship and evangelism are, they are not the be all and end all of being a human being. Cameron looks at creation, and man's original role as steward of the world, and claims that redemption does not do away with God's original purpose, but rather gets that original purpose back on track as it were. This reminded me of some of N. T. Wright's insights. The Bible's story is not about getting sinners to heaven and out of this mess of a creation we're in. It is about redeeming the creation and renewing it, for sinners to populate and live full human lives in a new heaven and earth.

Cameron points out that the traditional division between the secular and the sacred in life that we tacitly buy into in the church is unbiblical. At one point he says that to be novelist is every bit as noble a calling for the Christian as it is to be doctor or a teacher or a missionary.

Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the will and how we are guided by God. And it is a necessary corrective to the idea that Christians should be largely passive when we make important decisions.

He then discusses the emotions in what is another fine chapter.

Towards the end of the book there is a discussion of just how human (with all that entails) the "heroes of the faith" in the Bible are. Cameron suggests that if we got rid of false ideas of what it is to be "a saint" our Christian lives would be far more useful and peaceful. I think he is on the money where he criticises evangelical churches for denying perfectionism in theory but practically making it a stick to beat one another up with in practice.

His conclusion is simple yet very powerful. He points out that it is precisely when we seek to rise above our humanity as Christians or as human beings - as Adam did when he ate from the tree of good and evil - that we fall below what we should be. Since we are created in the image of God, to be human is to be as high in dignity and worth as we can ever hope to be and it is a great privilege and joy just to be a human being. Being a Christian is not about making ourselves less human, if anything it is about being more human than we could otherwise be. He writes: "[The] high goal of the Christian life does not consist in the suppression of the mind, the will, the heart, the body."

This is a book worth getting hold of and carefully reading. Any Christian would profit from it I would suggest. I would certainly like to read it again, slowly and prayerfully, because there's scarcely a page that doesn't say something challenging, encouraging and interesting.

A busy summer

It's been a long time since I've posted anything to the blog, but I'm hoping to get back into the habit very soon. The summer was very a busy period for us as it involved the buying of a new house, trying to sell our old one, doing a bit of upgrading to the new one, and finally packing up and then moving in less than a fortnight ago.

Everything is starting to take shape now, and we're very happy in the new house.

I should have broadband up and running in a couple of days and then blogging will become a practical possibility again.

Introducing Covenant Theology

Introducing Covenant Theology
Michael Horton
Baker Books

Michael Horton is one of the leading Reformed theologians working today and I have enjoyed reading several of his previous books. This book on covenant theology is no exception - it is tremendous.

The title is slightly misleading if you don't read it carefully. This is certainly not a mere introduction to covenant theology, but rather it does introduce us to fairly high-level current thinking on covenant theology. The book was formerly published with a different title, God of Promise, which I think was better.

For someone coming totally new to this area of theology, I think this book would be very challenging reading, and I would suggest perhaps something else as a first book on covenant theology. You could do a lot worse than reading James Packer's essay on covenant theology that was written as an introduction to Witsius's magnum opus, The Economy of Covenants Between God and Man. You can find Packer's essay here.

I really benefited from reading this book. Its discussion of the similarities and differences between the biblical covenants and the so-called suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East is excellent. Horton makes it clear that the Bible contains two forms of these treaties or covenants, and neither is what we would understand by a contract or agreement.

For Horton, there are covenants of law - and this includes the covenant of works with Adam before the Fall, and the Mosaic covenant at Sinai - and there covenants of promise - and this includes the covenants with Abraham, Noah, David and the New Covenant. Both are similar to these suzerain-vassal treaties, meaning that all are sovereignly imposed by God, but in the former case, there are obligations put on the people to obey and penalties for disobedience. This is the kind of treaty a conquering king would impose on a defeated nation after war.

But Horton correctly notes that many biblical covenants do not fit this pattern. The archetypal biblical covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, does not fit this pattern, for there no obligations are placed on Abraham - it is all promise, it is all grace. It is a treaty where the only obligations are taken by the king himself (in this case God) and the only potential penalties are self-maledictory ones. This points to the fact that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional in nature as far as we are concerned, though it was conditional as far as Christ was concerned.

There are interesting discussions within the book of such things as common grace, the sacraments, the church, and where our obedience fits into the covenant of grace scheme.

As I said before, this book is excellent and highly recommended, but perhaps don't think of it as a simple or basic introduction. It is actually a significant contribution to current Reformed thinking on covenant theology.

Recommended Bible Translations

Having earlier laid out a way of test driving a Bible translation here in a number of key areas, I thought it might be a useful follow up to mention what I consider to be the best translations available in English at the moment. I say translations (plural) because a number of translations are very good indeed while none are perfect.

It is a good idea if you can to have one main Bible that you use for daily reading and general use, while having two or three other translations that you can compare against one another if you are doing more in-depth Bible study.

On the Scottish Bible Society website shop, there are no less than 19 different translations mentioned and they range from the Authorised Version (King James Version) at one end of the scale through to Eugene Peterson's contemporary paraphrase The Message at the other end of the scale. I'm not going to comment on all of them because I haven't used all of them and to be frank there are some that are not worth commenting on.

It seems to me that any English Bible translation must essentially be judged on four criteria:

a. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used
b. The theological bias (and whether it is good or bad) of the translators
c. The accuracy of the translation
d. The effectiveness in communicating with the reader

The third and fourth criteria may be in tension with one another with more so-called "literal" translations (formal equivalence translations) tending to score higher for accuracy to the original text, while more dynamic translations (functional equivalence translations) tending to score higher for effective communication with the English reader. The optimum point lies somewhere between the two extremes which can either create very literal gobbledygook or "Biblish" at one end of the spectrum or clearly communicated half-truths or distortions of the meaning at the other end.

So here are my top ten choices in alphabetical order (not in order of preference).

1. AV/KJV - Authorised / King James Version

This is the classic English Bible first translated in 1611 (current editions are the 1769 Oxford revision). For over 200 years this was the Bible in English. Unsurpassed for beauty of translation in many passages, and with many phrases that have become part of everyday English, this is still worth having for reference purposes, especially if you read a lot of literature that was based on the KJV (e.g. Puritan or 19th century texts). However, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, a late Byzantine type of text probably further removed from the original autographs than most modern Bibles. In addition, the Jacobean English that gives much of the KJV's beauty can be difficult to understand and/or misleading for modern readers.

Nowadays, the KJV is probably best avoided as your main Bible unless you have grown up with it and used it all your life. It would make a good fifth or sixth choice if doing serious study as it is very literal and accurate (though accurate to a late NT Greek text).


2. ESV - English Standard Version

The ESV on the other hand is an up and coming translation very popular in Reformed and evangelical churches where preaching and Bible study tend to be at the heart of church life.

It is a conservative revision of the RSV. It is literal in approach (though not to such an extent as some other versions) and very accurate and it has removed the liberal bias in the RSV from the text. (So for example "virgin" is restored to Isaiah 7:14.)

However, it does favour archaic turns of phrase in places, perhaps in an effort to sound more "like the Bible" (ie the KJV). Critics have accused the ESV (with some justification) of communicating in Biblish rather than in natural modern English.

Even so, the ESV is among the best conservative formal equivalence translations and is becoming widely used. Whether it ends up the "standard" English version is less certain. It would be a good choice as a main Bible for personal or church use, provided the congregation is fairly well-educated and comfortable with technical Bible words such as "propitiation" or "justification" (otherwise the preacher may spend a lot of time "translating" the ESV into easier English).


3. GNB - Good News Bible

The Good News Bible was the Bible used at the church I went to for many years. It is a simple functional equivalence translation, designed to be understood by people of all different education levels. The second edition from the 1990s onwards is generally more accurate and less quirky than the original version.

The Good News Bible does show a liberal bias in places which may make some evangelicals wary of it. If this is an issue, I would recommend switching to the NLT mentioned below. However, the NLT is not yet available in an anglicised version for UK readers.


4. NASB - New American Standard Bible

I like the NASB. It is a very accurate translation indeed, to the point of being stilted and wooden according to some critics. This means that the NASB can be difficult to understand in places for this very reason. It tends to translate Hebrew or Koine Greek idioms word-for-word for example, which do not always mean anything to English readers. This is why a dynamic equivalent translation is useful alongside something as literal as the NASB.

There are also a few other minor quibbles with it. It is written only in American English, which is annoying as a British reader. Also, it uses capitals for pronouns relating to the Godhead, which is a personal stylistic issue that I don't like either. And it tends to take a more traditional line in translation that might not be in line with up-to-date biblical scholarship. For example NASB has "only begotten" in John 3:16, whereas modern scholars tell us the word means "unique"/"one of a kind".

The NASB's very strength is also the reason I would not recommend it as a primary Bible for church or personal use. However, if you can afford two Bibles, I would suggest the NASB would be a good second choice for study and comparison purposes as it takes you as close to the Greek and Hebrew as any English version in wide use today.


5. NIV - New International Version

The NIV is the best selling English version and the version used in worship and Bible study at my own church.

I find the NIV is an excellent balance between accuracy, readability and clarity. It is still the best choice, I believe, as a person's main everyday Bible. The drawbacks are few but there are times where the NIV is overly interpretive and not literal enough. For this reason, though I recommend using the NIV as your main Bible as it is a brilliant "all-rounder" you should supplement it with something more literal such as the NASB or ESV.

The NIV has recently been updated from the previous 1984 version. The 2011 NIV is very similar to the TNIV which is not longer being circulated (see TNIV below for more information on this point).


6. NKJV - New King James Version

A thorough revision and update of the KJV done by American scholars in 1982. The revision is so extensive that the NKJV is almost better classed as a new translation.

If it were not for the textual basis of the New Testament (the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus the same as the KJV), the NKJV would be among the the top choices among formal equivalent translations. Indeed it probably is up there anyway. The Old Testament translation is among the best of any Bible.

NKJV also has the best set of textual notes of any Bible. All editions allow readers to see where the different textual traditions differ in the Greek text. If you could get a version of the NKJV with the NU variants in the text, it would be ideal.

Basically the NKJV gives you the KJV without the thees, thys and dosts.


7. NLT - New Living Translation

Some have mistakenly called the NLT a mere revision of the Living Bible which is an out and out paraphrase. But that's unfair. The NLT is a new and very good translation. The only thing it shares really with the earlier work is the "Living" part of its name.

The NLT is a thorough-going dynamic equivalence translation, similar in style to the Good News Bible. Yet, the NLT is a far better translation in my view because it is written from a conservative theological viewpoint and was produced by a team of translators who are a virtual who's who of Old and New Testament scholars.

In my view, the NLT is not literal enough to be used as a main preaching, teaching or study bible, except perhaps in congregations with many people who either don't have a church background or where perhaps many of the congregation have a poor level of reading ability.

It would be a good third or fourth translation to have for comparison. It is easy to read, which is very useful if you are reading large sections of narrative in particular. Unfortunately there is no British English edition yet in existence.


8. NRSV - New Revised Standard Version

The NRSV is an excellent modern translation using the formal equivalence method of translation and using the most up to date Hebrew and Greek texts. What mars it somewhat is its liberal theological bias that is shown in many places and also its consistent use of "gender neutral" language. Although I don't mind this in places where it reads things like "brothers and sisters" where the underlying text would be used for both males and females, I don't care for it when words in the singular are pluralised so as to avoid the generic "he". It also seems to be absurd to change things like "Son of Man" to "Mortal"(!).

Because of its problems, I would not choose the NRSV as my main Bible, but it is a very good second or third version to read in conjunction with more conservative versions. On many many occasions it translates verses very well.


9. REB - Revised English Bible

The REB reminds me very much of the NRSV and in many respects it is a similar translation aimed at a similar readership. Both Bibles are produced by and largely used by mainline liberal denominations, but whereas the NRSV is a revised and update of the RSV and was essentially an American translation, the REB is a major revision of the New English Bible (1970) and is a British translation.

The REB is very well written and often stylish and it does not go overboard with the gender neutral stuff. However, it still shows a liberal bias in places.

I find it useful as an alternative type of translation and coming from a different translational heritage to many of the other versions. At times it gives fresh insight into a passage. At other times, it is less successful. It is, however, a much better translation than the old NEB.


10. TNIV - Today's New International Version

The truth is that the TNIV is very similar indeed to its parent translation the NIV. The main difference is that the TNIV adopts gender neutral language throughout - both pluralising to avoid the generic "he" pronoun and using phrases like "brothers and sisters" to translate adelphoi.
As far as the changes from the NIV are concerned, they are a mixed bag. Many of the changes are for the better and in some respects the TNIV is slightly more literal than the NIV. However, some are not as good in my view as the original NIV.

The TNIV has proved very controversial because of its gender neutral language and though a good translation it is probably not worth using, not least because it is no longer being produced as the new NIV has now come out to replace it.


Recommendations

It is impossible to give recommendations that will be right for everyone. There is wisdom in a "horses for courses" approach.

As I said at the beginning, it is good to have a number of translations if possible so that they can be compared. Often this will give greater insight into the meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek.

I suggest a combination of at least any four of the following groups:

1. NASB / ESV / NKJV - I think it essential to have a good literal translation produced by a team of conservative/evangelical scholars. This is one of mainstays of serious Bible study for English readers.

2. NIV / TNIV - The NIV group of translations strike perhaps the best balance between formal and function equivalence, being both clear in communication and largely accurate in translation. I would say one of these is essential and would probably be the best Bible to choose if you only have one, or one main one.

3. NRSV / REB - Either the NRSV or REB would make a good third Bible to use for serious study. Although they are liberal in parts, they offer insight into how others might interpret the biblical texts and in many instances they can provide a useful counterweight to the more conservative translations. The REB in particular may well contrast with other translations as it comes from a different translation parentage. If one wanted to avoid any liberal translation at all, I would suggest skipping these two and having two from the first group instead.

4. GNB / NLT - Either of these dynamic equivalent translations would make a good fourth Bible. They can be useful if reading large sections of the Bible at a sitting such as Old Testament narrative and they will be easy to understand though at times offering more an interpretation than a mere translation of a passage. Between them, the NLT is much more conservative in theology. Its only drawback is that it does not have an anglicized version as yet. The same could be said of the NASB and NKJV for that matter.

The Profit-Driven Life

A Critique of The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren

The Purpose-Driven Life is a popular best-selling book by Rick Warren, the founding pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. It was written in 2002 and is published by Zondervan. As of today, it was still at number five on Amazon’s list of bestselling books on ‘Christian Living.’ So there must still be a significant number of new copies being sold. In addition, the book has sold over 20 million copies and so has potentially influenced many Christians during the past 8 years . This is enough to warrant my brief Johnny-come-lately review.

The book is aggressively marketed and makes huge claims for itself. The back cover proclaims high-praise indeed:

• ‘Make sure you’re not missing the point of your life—read this book!’ (Billy Graham and Franklin Graham).
• ‘A Groundbreaking Manifesto on the Meaning of Life.’
• ‘A blueprint for Christian living in the 21st century.’

Everything about the packaging of the book speaks first and foremost of a business venture, a money-spinning brand. On almost every page the phrase “Purpose-Driven” is infuriatingly marked with the ‘®’ mark, which is simply ridiculous. What is it about Americans that they think they can have proprietary control over the English language. As a good British patriot I want to tell them to back off. Our languages belongs to the people, not corporate America. The profit-driven life underpinning this book is further demonstrated by the plethora of spin-offs that the reader is encouraged to buy in addition to the book: calendars, journals, CDs, etc. You name it and they’ll slap ‘Purpose-Driven®’ on it and sell you it.

So much for the marketing and blurb. Moving on to the book itself, the name of the problem is ‘legion’ for there are many.

The first problem with the substance of the book occurs right at the very beginning, even before we reach the Contents page. The book simply takes a careless approach to Scripture, and constantly fails to distinguish between Scriptures addressed to God’s people and Scriptures that may be applied to everyone. The reader is addressed as ‘you’ throughout, and it is clear from the start that the ‘you’ is any reader, not just any Christian reader. Absolutely nothing is even hinted that the promises of God’s blessing and salvation do not apply to unbelievers.

The introduction is entitled ‘A Journey With a Purpose’ and the stated purpose of the book is fair enough, laudable even. The book sets out to ‘enable you to discover the answer to life’s most important questions.’ Fair enough. But then it goes overboard and claims that it will ‘reduce your stress, simplify your decisions, increase your satisfaction, and most important [sic], prepare you for eternity.’ (p.9).

We will refrain from commenting on this beyond saying that it seems to take the roles of the Bible and the Holy Spirit and make them its own. And in that sense it usurps the place of Word and Spirit in its claims.

Clearly then the book has great ambition and makes grand claims for itself. This is no mere guide to the Christian life. No mere signpost to the Scriptures themselves. It reads as if the book gives some kind of inside track to spiritual happiness.

The strange thing is that it tries to speak to the non-Christian about how he or she can discover what life is all about, without beginning with an explanation of what’s wrong with their lives as they are 'without hope and without God in the world'. This book contrives to largely by-pass the apostolic gospel and jumps straight to what is in effect the Christian life – but it applies it to believers and those who have not yet come to saving faith alike.

It is certainly not written for the biblically-minded Christian, because few Christians would, I would hope, accept the vaguely mystical aspects of the structure. There is the whole business about the 40 days for one thing of which much is made in the book’s self-recommendation. Warren claims that some kind of magical importance attaches to the number 40: ‘God considers 40 days a spiritually significant period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days.’ (p.9) This is simply untrue. It is a pseudo-mystical statement written for a biblically illiterate generation. Some of the ‘examples’ used to justify this sweeping statement are risible. Noah and his 40 days of rain for instance. Apparently the many years it took Noah to build the ark cannot be considered as part of his preparation for God’s purposes! And what about all the people who didn’t go through a 40-day spiritual ‘programme’? Insignificant biblical characters like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samuel, Job, Mary, Peter and Paul to name a few – there was no 40-day magical period of preparation. This is utter nonsense – marketing tripe of the worst order.

Warren makes much of the fact that the Scriptures are cited extensively. That is superficially true, but even here there are major problems. The first problem is the way in which the Bible is cited. On almost no occasion is the reference given, so that the reader can look up the verse in his own Bible. Almost all evangelical Christian books encourage the reader – indeed force the reader sometimes – to go to the Bible for themselves. At the very least they enable the reader to note which verses are being quoted. Warren’s book discourages this by giving the references an endnote number. The actual verse references are buried in an appendix at the back of the book. The second problem is that there is a strong tendency to quote from loose paraphrases that fail to convery with any accuracy the content of the Word of God. Warren also has a tendency to quote from a wide range of translations and it might look like he picks the translation to fit his points rather than adjusting his points to ‘fit’ what the Bible actually says. This is pick-and-mix theology for the postmodern world. A perfect example is Warren’s choice for the most often quoted version of Scripture. The very loose paraphrase, The Message, is used most often. It makes the Bible sound contemporary to the reader unfamiliar with the Bible, which may be useful sometimes, but it is often woefully inaccurate and should never be used to back up theological arguments in the way Warren uses it.

Another aspect of the book I don’t like is the ‘My Covenant’ page right at the start of the book. Here the reader is supposed to fill in his name that ‘With God’s help, I commit the next 40 days of my life to discovering God’s purpose for my life.’ That’s some commitment. It’s so shallow, one hardly knows where to begin. Who is this ‘covenant’ being made with and why? To Rick Warren? Only his name and the reader’s appear on it. Certainly not to God and rightly so. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace—all of humanity is under one or the other in this life and neither last for only 40 days.

Originally, I had planned to work my way through the book and review each chapter, but actually I couldn’t be bothered after about ten days in, so I’m going to spare you any more of this review.

I found an excellent review on the web that pretty much says what I would have written anyway, so if you want to find out more, I commend the review by Tim Challies at http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/book-review-rick-warrens-the-purpose-driven-life.

I'll close with this. The Christian faith is not primarily concerned with giving you a purpose-driven life, though it will do that. No, the Christian faith is primarily concerned with the purpose-driven God revealed in the Scriptures. As the Shorter Catechism put it so well, 'Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.' Warren's book falls short - way short - of this full-orbed biblical vision of the purpose of human life.

Test Driving Bible Translations

There are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation.

Ultimately, I think an English reader will normally benefit from using more than one translation – at least one literal one and one more dynamic one, which can help bring out the meaning. The advantage of a literal translation is that it stays close to the inspired texts in the original language; the weakness can be that it may not always communicate particularly clearly or well in English. Conversely, a more dynamic translation’s weakness is that it may stray more from the original text and be more interpretative, giving the translators’ opinions; the advantage that it will communicate clearly to the English reader.

For me, the best approach is to only move towards the more dynamic approach when the translation would otherwise be unclear or misleading, but this should be kept in check to avoid the translators straying into interpretative territory.

Brief explanations of what is preferable in translation follow each of the following verses. By checking your translation against these verses, you will get a good idea of the textual basis underlying your Bible translation, how accurate and clear it is, and what theological biases it has (if any) either good or bad.

1 Samuel 8:16

‘He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.’ (NASB)

A good verse to show how strictly the Old Testament translation is sticking to the Masoretic Hebrew text (‘young men’), or how readily the translators will take a more eclectic approach making use of the Septuagint or other versions, as then they will have ‘cattle’ or similar as this supposedly makes more sense in context (i.e. the Hebrew text is believed to be corrupted here). It is possible that occasionally the Septuagint in Greek – being older than existing Hebrew texts – may represent an earlier more accurate form of the Hebrew texts.

Matthew 10:8

‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (EMTV)

‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (NKJV).

‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (NIV)

This is an interesting verse to check out the textual basis of the translation of the New Testament because the three commonly used published texts differ from each other in this verse and in a way that does show up in translation. The Majority Text (the Byzantine Text-Type found in the majority of Greek manuscripts) omits the words ‘raise the dead’ – as in the EMTV above. The Textus Receptus or Received Text (the form of the Byzantine text used in the historic Reformation translations of the Bible) has ‘cleanse the lepers’ before ‘raise the dead.’ The Nestle-Aland/UBS eclectic text has: ‘raise the dead’ before ‘cleanse those who have leprosy.’ This is the text most modern translations are based on.

Genesis 1:2

‘The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.’ (NASB)

This verse is a test of theological bias. The verse should mention the ‘Spirit of God’ and not some impersonal ‘power of God’ or ‘wind of God’ that obscures the reference to the Holy Spirit.

Genesis 19:24

‘Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky.’ (WEB)

An accurate translation here will mention Yahweh, Jehovah or ‘the LORD’ as if two persons – one raining the sulphur on Sodom, from another in heaven.

Ruth 2:20

‘And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed is he of Jehovah, who has not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said to her, The man is near of kin to us, he is of our redeemers.’ (MKJV)

When translated properly as here, this verse brings out very clearly the OT concept of the “Kinsman-Redeemer” so crucial in understanding Christ’s office as the Redeemer of his people.

Psalm 25:14

‘The LORD is the friend of those who obey him and he affirms his covenant with them.’ (GNB)

Though the Hebrew can be translated otherwise, without loss of accuracy (e.g. secrecy or intimacy of the LORD), this brings out the beauty of the covenant as bond of friendship between God and his people.

Isaiah 7:14

‘So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.’ (MKJV)

No translation is really acceptable to a conservative Christian which does not have ‘virgin’ here. Some liberal translations have 'young woman' instead. Although this is a permissible translation from Hebrew, it is clear from Matthew's interpretation of this verse in his Gospel, that he regarded the correct translation as 'virgin' (which is what the Greek word is in the New Testament - and in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament).

Ezekiel 33:11

‘Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord Jehovah, I do not have delight in the death of the wicked, except in the wicked turning from his way, and so to live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! For why will you die, O house of Israel?’ (LITV)

Most translation have ‘have no pleasure in’ or ‘desire’ or even worse ‘want’ but ‘delight’ is the best translation by far, as this confirms that all God’s desires are fulfilled (cf Job 23:13) while allowing that God delights in many things that he does not in all occasions come to pass (cf Jer 9:24).

Jonah 3:3

‘So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of Jehovah. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days’ journey.’ (ASV)

The meaning of the phrase ‘of three days’ journey’ is ambiguous. It is better left that way in the translation rather than interpreting it only one way, possibly wrongly. Some say the city was three days’ journey across or three days' journey away or a visit required three days to see the city. All of these are possibilities.

Haggai 2:7

‘And I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.’ (NKJV)

Many translations miss the Messianic prophecy contained here. The “Desire of All Nations” is a person – it is a title of the Messiah, and it foretells of the Gentile nations coming to Christ as their Saviour. Many translations misinterpret this verse so as to completely remove this prophecy, e.g. the NASB is representative: ‘’I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.’

Micah 5:2

‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.’ (WEB)

The verse really must be ‘goings forth’ not ‘origins’, and from ‘everlasting’ or at very least from ‘the days of eternity’ as this verse concerns the eternal Son of God.

Matthew 2:10

‘When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.’ (KJV)

This is a good verse to see how literal/formal equivalent a translation is. A good one will have rejoiced/great joy repeated. Dynamic equivalents will change to ‘overjoyed’ or something similar and not mention both rejoice and joy.

Matthew 16:18

‘And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ (EMTV)

Firstly, the verse must not be translated to suggest that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. This is almost certainly not what the verse means. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder.

Matthew 19:9

‘And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’ (ESV)

The word traditionally rendered ‘fornication’ is ‘porneia’ and probably includes other kinds of serious sex sin and not just full sexual intercourse. So ‘sexual immorality’ or similar is a better translation.

Mark 2:19

‘And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast”.’ (ESV)

The phrase translated ‘wedding guests’ is a Hebrew idiom literally meaning ‘children’ or ‘sons of the bridechamber’. If translated as literally as this, the meaning is either lost or made quite misleading.

Luke 4:22

‘And all they bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words, which proceeded out of his mouth, and said: Is not this Joseph's son?’ (Tyndale)

It is much better to translate as ‘bare witness to him’ than ‘all spoke well of him’ which is probably not true in the situation and not the primary meaning of the Greek word. You can bare witness even when telling others and voicing disapproval, which is what Christ actually encountered.

Luke 10:34

‘He went over to him, poured oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them; then he put the man on his own animal and took him to an inn, where he took care of him.’ (GNB)

Actually a literal translation here will give the misleading impression that the order of events was that the wounds were bandaged and then the oil was poured on. A Greek reader would know from the Greek participles used that the oil and wine were put on first, then the wounds bandaged. Usually a more functionally equivalent translation will correctly clarify this by changing the order of events round into natural English.

John 3:16

‘For God loved the world in this way: that he gave his one-of-a-kind Son, in order that everyone believing in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ (Author’s Translation)

‘One-of-a-kind’ or ‘one and only’ is a more accurate translation of the Greek word monogenes that the traditional ‘Only begotten’ which misunderstands the meaning of the Greek word. It is not ‘only generated’ but ‘one-of-a-kind’. Likewise ‘everyone believing’ or ‘every who believes’ is better than ‘whosoever believes’ though from the KJV we are probably stuck with this in most English translations.

Acts 5:30

‘The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.’ (ESV)

First, it should read ‘tree’ here not ‘cross’ which is interpretative and definitely not the word Luke used. More importantly, it should not read ‘whom you killed and hanged on a tree’ as in KJV, which makes it sound as if a corpse already killed was then hanged on a tree.

Acts 20:28

‘Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.’ (HCSB)

When correctly translated as here, this verse is a great prooftext that Christ is God. Unfortunately some translations fluff it.

Romans 9:5

‘Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.’ (NIV)

Liberal translations often mess about with the punctuation or word order here to rule out Christ being called God in this verse. The NIV is one of the best in English – clearly stating Christ’s full deity.

1 Corinthians 7:1

‘Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ (NASB)

Many translations try to interpret Paul one way or another – usually either saying ‘not to have sexual relations with’ (ESV) or ‘not to marry’ (GNB). I think the ESV is correct, but I would argue it is better to translate what Paul actually wrote and leave it for commentators and preachers to explain it – and leave it as ‘not to touch’ in the translation.

1 Corinthians 7:36
‘But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.’ (NKJV)

Again this verse is translated literally here – and the job of interpreting it left to commentators or preachers. Who is ‘his virgin’? is the issue. Most translations which seek to interpret it, regard it as ‘betrothed’ (the virgin he is going to marry) and this is probably right, although ASV and NASB have ‘virgin daughter’ putting the man in a ‘father of the bride’ position.

Philippians 2:6-7

‘Who, being in very nature God, did not it consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no account, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.’ (Author’s Translation)

This is well-known as one of the most difficult verses to translate in the entire New Testament. One error to be avoided is the notion that Christ gave up his deity or attributes of deity when he became incarnate. The admittedly literal translation ‘emptied himself’ (instead of ‘made himself nothing’ or ‘made no account of himself’) is open to this error and probably best avoided. The older versions usually have ‘made himself of no reputation’ which is also good. ‘Made himself of no account’ though not used in any translation I could find, would capture the meaning of the verse well in my opinion.

Colossians 2:8

‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’ (NKJV)

What Paul has in view here is really the world’s viewpoint, the basic, elementary principles that the world assumes are true. Some translations miss the point and think this refers to worldly superstitions or spiritual matters, but it need not be limited to this.

2 Timothy 3:16

‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.’ (ESV)

Most translations feel bound to go with the traditional ‘inspired’ here but this really quite misleading. The crucial point of the word Paul uses here is not that the Scriptures are ‘inspired’ writings in the sense that we might say Shakespeare was inspired when he wrote Hamlet or King Lear. The true meaning is that the Scripture are breathed out by God. They are in the truest sense, God’s own words. They are literally ‘God-breathed’ (NIV). The KJV ‘given by inspiration of God’ is a little better as this at least hints that the ‘inspiration of God’ is something God actively does in order to give us the Scriptures. ‘God-breathed’ (NIV) is much better and entirely literal, but this translation in the ESV is best of all – it accurately conveys the Greek in a natural English sentence. The worst is where the sentence is re-worded to say ‘Every inspired Scripture is…’ implying that not all scripture is inspired.

1 Peter 3:3-4

‘You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. Instead, your beauty should consist of your true inner self, the ageless beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of the greatest value in God's sight.’ (GNB)

There is a tricky Greek phrase to translate in verse 4. Literally it is ‘the hidden man of the heart’ which is either meaningless or liable to be terribly misunderstood when rendered as literally as this in English. It is a Greek idiom meaning something like ‘true inner self’ as here in GNB or ‘the inmost self’ (REB). This may be an occasion where the principle ‘as free as necessary’ should be applied to the translation as the point is that it should be inner beauty that adorns a Christian woman. Certainly, it is not that she should have a mysterious ‘hidden man of the heart’!

2 Peter 1:1

‘To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.’ (NIV)

A good translation will make it clear that ‘our God’ is our ‘Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Some translations mistranslate as ‘our God and our Saviour’ implying two persons are involved, which is certainly not what the Greek means.

2 Peter 1:20

‘knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.’ (NKJV)

The innocuous-looking last phrase in this verse has caused perhaps as much controversy as any verse in the New Testament! There are at least three different ways the verse can be taken. It is unclear whether the verse means that the Scripture is not allowed to be privately interpretated by a Christian (BBE) (this would be Rome’s traditional view – that the Church will define what Scripture means for the faithful), or is incapable of being interpreted by an individual privately (CEV), or that no prophecy comes about through the prophet’s own imagination (NET) but by revelation (as the next verse makes clear). I think the NET’s interpretation is actually correct, but it remains very much an interpretation of the meaning of the text rather than a translation. A more literal, neutral translation such as the NKJV’s here is probably best, as it leaves it up to expositors to explain what the phrase means. Some translations choose one of the possible meanings for the reader. Unfortunately, if they have chosen the wrong one, then the readers are misled.

1 John 3:9

‘No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.’ (NASB)

Many translations simply state that no one born of God sins, which is misleading, since we do continue to sin after we are born again as Christian believers. But we no longer practise sin. It happens but we do not work at it and revel in it. The NASB and some other translations bring out John’s point much better.

The Saving Righteousness of God

The Saving Righteousness of God
Michael F. Bird
Paternoster/Wipf & Stock 2007

This is an important if rather technical work from a talented Australian theologian on the much debated areas of Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Bird's book is irenic in tone, in fact it's practically a call for a cease fire in the hostilities between the Old Perspective and the New Perspective on justification.

Bird charts a "third way" that is basically still the Old Perspective but augmented (and I use that word deliberately as opposed to "diminished") by some valid New Perspective insights. Such an approach is risky - it always risks being attacked on two fronts, as being not true to either perspective. But Bird is a careful exegete and willing to be critical of both sides.

Some of the chapters have appeared in some form within theological journals and periodicals, but have probably been revised for publication here, and there is also a fair amount of new material.

Of particular interest was Bird's concept of "incorporated righteousness" rather than imputed (traditional Protestant theology) or infused (traditional Roman Catholic theology) righteousness in the doctrine of justification. If I read Bird correctly, he has no problem with, and agrees with, imputation as a systematic theology category, but he thinks this is not how Paul himself understood our becoming righteous. In a way, Paul's scheme is simpler. We are righteous because Christ is righteous and we are "in Christ" - incorporated into Christ, in union with Christ. I found Bird's analysis interesting.

The end result may be the same, but there is a difference between Christ giving us his righteousness and us benefiting from his righteousness by being united to him. Either way we are righteous through an alien righteousness being reckoned to us, but there are differences too. One is like a cosmic set of accounts being drawn up and righteousness being transferred from one account to the other. The other is much more relational and organic. It's like the difference between handing someone one of your umbrellas and a raincoat to protect them from the rain, and inviting them to come into your house. Either way you are kept dry, but the methods are very different.

The other chapters were interesting too, particularly his analysis of the close link between Christ's resurrection and our justification (cf Romans 4:25). Rather than looking at Christ's life in terms of merit that can then be passed around the faithful, Bird sides with the New Perspective and sees it in terms of fulfilling his mission as Messiah and being the one faithful Israelite. Then the resurrection is seen as Christ's own vindication and justification first and then ours through union with him. If Christ's resurrection becomes our justification, it is difficult to see how our future justification can be based on works as N. T. Wright posits. Indeed Bird comes fair and squarely down on the side of the Old Perspective when he states that our future justification is based solely on Christ's death and resurrection. Our works, for Bird, are evidential and not instrumental in our justification.

I found this book stimulating and challenging reading. It deserves to be widely read in Reformed and evangelical circles.