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.
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Friday, 30 April 2010
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:
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.
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.’
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.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
The Future of Justification
The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 2008
This is an important book from John Piper in which he outlines and then criticises in detail the teachings regarding justification by New Perspective theologian and Anglican bishop, N. T. Wright.
Piper here is at his very best and writes as a theologian and as a concerned pastor. Point-by-point he criticises Wright not just because Wright's views are different from the Reformed/Protestant tradition (the proponents of Wright's views who dismiss Piper with this kind of remark have totally missed the mark). Piper engages Wright on the texts and the discussion is at the exegetical level for the most part.
The Future of Justification brings into sharper focus just how much the New Perspective on Paul - even in its most evangelical guise under Wright's advocacy - is a serious departure yes from Reformed tradition, but more seriously from the New Testament. Time and time again, Piper demonstrates just how Wright's claims take some of the evidence and treat it as if it was all and then dismisses the texts that don't fit. The truth is that Wright is the one committed to a theological project through which he reads the texts. Claims to be only concerned with the texts fail to convince.
Piper writes with an irenic spirit yet not one that will compromise the gospel. He bends over backwards in fact to put Wright in the best possible light he can. Yet even with this, he still makes many telling criticisms of Wrightian exegesis and theology. I think the power of Piper's "response" is obvious - not least in the fact that Wright felt he had write a reply (though a very indirect and frustrating one) and seems to have modified his view from earlier statements. I think the Wright of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) is much closer to Piper than the Wright of What Saint Paul Really Said (1997). Perhaps in time, he will go further get closer to Piper's view yet. One hopes so, for Piper is on the side of Protestant orthodoxy on this issue and Wright, at times, isn't.
This is bound to become a key text in the ongoing theological discussion and dispute between the Old and New Perspectives on Paul.
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 2008
This is an important book from John Piper in which he outlines and then criticises in detail the teachings regarding justification by New Perspective theologian and Anglican bishop, N. T. Wright.
Piper here is at his very best and writes as a theologian and as a concerned pastor. Point-by-point he criticises Wright not just because Wright's views are different from the Reformed/Protestant tradition (the proponents of Wright's views who dismiss Piper with this kind of remark have totally missed the mark). Piper engages Wright on the texts and the discussion is at the exegetical level for the most part.
The Future of Justification brings into sharper focus just how much the New Perspective on Paul - even in its most evangelical guise under Wright's advocacy - is a serious departure yes from Reformed tradition, but more seriously from the New Testament. Time and time again, Piper demonstrates just how Wright's claims take some of the evidence and treat it as if it was all and then dismisses the texts that don't fit. The truth is that Wright is the one committed to a theological project through which he reads the texts. Claims to be only concerned with the texts fail to convince.
Piper writes with an irenic spirit yet not one that will compromise the gospel. He bends over backwards in fact to put Wright in the best possible light he can. Yet even with this, he still makes many telling criticisms of Wrightian exegesis and theology. I think the power of Piper's "response" is obvious - not least in the fact that Wright felt he had write a reply (though a very indirect and frustrating one) and seems to have modified his view from earlier statements. I think the Wright of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) is much closer to Piper than the Wright of What Saint Paul Really Said (1997). Perhaps in time, he will go further get closer to Piper's view yet. One hopes so, for Piper is on the side of Protestant orthodoxy on this issue and Wright, at times, isn't.
This is bound to become a key text in the ongoing theological discussion and dispute between the Old and New Perspectives on Paul.
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Counted Righteous in Christ
Counted Righteous in Christ
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press
I have been reading quite a lot about the doctrine of justification recently, mostly as a result of trying to come to grips with the New Perspective on Paul and in particular N. T. Wright's re-writing of Paul's doctrine of justification. By this I mean his re-writing of what has been understood to be Paul's doctrine at least since the time of Augustine onwards (though Wright would say he is going back to what Paul really said as one of his earlier books put it).
The latest book in my reading is Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper. In this book, Piper deals with only one part of the debate surrounding justification, and in which Piper actually crosses swords not with Wright, but with Robert Gundry. The matter is dispute is quite narrow and exact and it's this: traditionally, evangelicals have said that in justification two things happen (1) our sins are counted, reckoned or imputed to Christ in his death as if they were his and atoned for through his sacrifice and (2) Christ's righteousness or right standing before God as a result of his sinless life of obedience to God is counted, reckoned or imputed to us. Gundry has argued that only point (1) is true and (2) should be abandoned as "unbiblical". Piper's book objects to Gundry's view and argues that (2) is also true and essential for a right understanding of the gospel.
Gundry's view in essence is that it is not Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us by faith, but rather that God imputes our faith in Christ to us as righteousness. Read that sentence again: it is not that Christ is our righteousness, but that our faith is accepted as our own righteousness.
The book is a short one of less than 150 pages and is divided into four chapters. The first two chapters are written from quite a personal, pastoral perspective about why this subject matters and is worth arguing about. The heart of the book is chapter three, which takes up more than half the book is given to exegesis of the key texts in the debate, namely Romans 4, Romans 10:10, Philippians 3:8-9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 1:30, and Romans 5:12-19. The book ends with a concluding chapter where the arguments are drawn together.
Piper concludes his book with these words (p.125):
This is not an easy book, nor a popular book. I suspect that many Christians reading this would scratch their heads and ask "What's this all about? Why is Piper so concerned?" Even so, this is an important book by Piper. The view he defends is the view historically held by the Protestant churches.
The doctrine of imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers is one of the areas where Piper disagrees also with the New Perspective and Tom Wright. But that's another story, and another review.
To me it is the glory of the gospel that I do not need to rely on myself for my righteousness before God, no not even relying as it were on the empty hand of faith. I want to rely on the rock of Christ and his life and work, not on the shifting sands of anything in myself.
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press
I have been reading quite a lot about the doctrine of justification recently, mostly as a result of trying to come to grips with the New Perspective on Paul and in particular N. T. Wright's re-writing of Paul's doctrine of justification. By this I mean his re-writing of what has been understood to be Paul's doctrine at least since the time of Augustine onwards (though Wright would say he is going back to what Paul really said as one of his earlier books put it).
The latest book in my reading is Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper. In this book, Piper deals with only one part of the debate surrounding justification, and in which Piper actually crosses swords not with Wright, but with Robert Gundry. The matter is dispute is quite narrow and exact and it's this: traditionally, evangelicals have said that in justification two things happen (1) our sins are counted, reckoned or imputed to Christ in his death as if they were his and atoned for through his sacrifice and (2) Christ's righteousness or right standing before God as a result of his sinless life of obedience to God is counted, reckoned or imputed to us. Gundry has argued that only point (1) is true and (2) should be abandoned as "unbiblical". Piper's book objects to Gundry's view and argues that (2) is also true and essential for a right understanding of the gospel.
Gundry's view in essence is that it is not Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us by faith, but rather that God imputes our faith in Christ to us as righteousness. Read that sentence again: it is not that Christ is our righteousness, but that our faith is accepted as our own righteousness.
The book is a short one of less than 150 pages and is divided into four chapters. The first two chapters are written from quite a personal, pastoral perspective about why this subject matters and is worth arguing about. The heart of the book is chapter three, which takes up more than half the book is given to exegesis of the key texts in the debate, namely Romans 4, Romans 10:10, Philippians 3:8-9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 1:30, and Romans 5:12-19. The book ends with a concluding chapter where the arguments are drawn together.
Piper concludes his book with these words (p.125):
I pray that the "newer" ways of understanding justification, which deny the reality of the imputation of divine righteousness to sinners by faith alone, will not flourish, and that the fullest pastoral help for souls will not be diminished.Piper's main concerns are exegetical and theological, but in this concluding paragraph, we find two other aspects that Piper understands to be wanting in Gundry's view. Piper argues that the older view gives Christ all the glory where Gundry's view says that our righteousness is not down to Christ's work alone, but takes our own faith into account. And secondly, Piper recognises the pastoral problems of saying to sinners that for your righteousness you cannot rely on Christ, you have to rely God's promise to accept your own faith as your righteousness.
This is not an easy book, nor a popular book. I suspect that many Christians reading this would scratch their heads and ask "What's this all about? Why is Piper so concerned?" Even so, this is an important book by Piper. The view he defends is the view historically held by the Protestant churches.
The doctrine of imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers is one of the areas where Piper disagrees also with the New Perspective and Tom Wright. But that's another story, and another review.
To me it is the glory of the gospel that I do not need to rely on myself for my righteousness before God, no not even relying as it were on the empty hand of faith. I want to rely on the rock of Christ and his life and work, not on the shifting sands of anything in myself.
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
by Tom Wright
SPCK
This is the latest book by New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, in which he outlines his unique interpretation of the writings of the apostle Paul as they concern the subject of justification. As is well known, Wright is one of the key figures in the loose grouping of New Testament scholarship known for better or worse as the New Perspective on Paul. Wright is significant not only because he is the most popular, the clearest, and the most evangelical of the main scholars associated with the movement, and therefore the person whose teachings have made the most inroads into evangelicalism in Britain and the United States, but also because in this particular book, Wright confronts his many critics who come from "the Old Perspective" or more accurately, traditional evangelicalism and confessional Reformed theology. In particular, Wright's critic, John Piper who wrote a book critiquing the new perspective and Wright especially called The Future of Justification comes in for some stinging criticism.
Wright's central metaphor in the book is that the Old Perspective is like someone who insists the earth is the centre of the solar system because the sun rises and sets each day, whereas the New Perspective is (naturally in Wright's mind) like the person who realises the deeper truth that the sun is at the centre and the earth revolves around it. Of course this immediately sets up the idea that the Old Perspective is not only outdated and less sophisticated, but also simply untrue. That does more or less poison the well. The fact is that the choice is not between an unsophisticated and demonstrably untrue view of the Bible and a sophisticated and demonstrably true view. The choice is between two sophisticated views, one which has been understood and believed for centuries and which fits the Bible's testimony (I don't accept Wright's assertions otherwise) and one which has been more or less discovered by Wright himself and missed by every generation of theologians from the post-apostolic period till the 1970s. Of course it is possible Wright is correct and everyone else did get it wrong. But just going back to the texts in itself does not guarantee theological correctness. Not if you go back and interpret them in the wrong way!
Time and time again, Wright says that his opponents "don't get it" as if the only problem with his view is that the rest of us are a bit thick. Maybe that's not how he intended to come across, but I'm afraid that is how he comes across at times, and it is not an attractive quality. It compares poorly with Piper's gentleness and graciousness in dealing with Wright.
Despite many shortcomings, I like Wright. I like a lot of what he says. And a lot of what he says is absolutely biblical and solidly evangelical, even Reformed. Just look at his defence of the bodily resurrection of Christ for example, and the way in which the covenant lies at the heart of Wright's theology. There are aspects of his doctrine of justification that are also, it seems to me, entirely in harmony with the Bible, the Reformed confessions and the best of traditional evangelical scholarship and church teaching.
However, there are also massive problems with Wright's views on the subject of justification, and this book only clarifies that the problems are a clear and present danger to the church, rather than allay any such fears.
There are a number of points that should be borne in mind about Wright's teaching in this book (and his others for that matter - the latest book does not shift much ground from what Wright has previously said).
Firstly, much of what Wright says here would find ready agreement from many "old perspective" people. I think it was the New Testament scholar, I. Howard Marshall, who brilliantly summed up the New Perspective as being "right in what it affirms and wrong it what it denies." Amen to that! Wright, somewhat inexplicably, writes as if almost everything he teaches is revolutionary and was never noticed by Old Perspective traditionalist Reformed theologians like John Piper and many others like him. That's just not the case. Almost all of what Wright states about God's covenant and purposes has been said before by Reformed theologians, particularly in Reformed Biblical theology. It is quite clear from where Wright is coming from that he does not even have a rudimentary knowledge of covenant theology, far less a grasp of its historical development from Calvin to the present day. Otherwise he could not write with that "look what I alone have discovered" tone he sometimes displays.
Secondly, there are new insights that we need to hear and correctives we need to heed in Wright's teachings. The problem for us in dealing with the New Perspective is in sifting out the sound teaching - and there is much in Wright's work that is good and true - from the errors that pepper the book. Wright is correct in probably 75% of what he says. Justification is in part a matter of ecclesiology and of telling "who has membership of the covenant people." It does have ramifications for how we do church and how we treat each other as Christian brothers and sisters. But it does so precisely because all Christians are forgiven their sins and declared righteous in God's sight on the same basis - by Christ's work received in faith. Wright is right that in Reformed theology we have too often made salvation an individual and private matter and not fully realised the implications of the gospel in a corporate sense for the whole of creation. We have de-politicised the gospel and in that sense we have truncated the gospel. Wright is on the right track I believe in all these issues. But this is not the stuff that is actually in conflict with the Old Perspective, though sometimes Wright puts it as if rejecting some of what he says that we cannot agree with means we have to reject that which we can accept. Wright's views it seems to me help us gain a better understanding of how the Gospels and Letters in the New Testament fit together. But yet again, we do not need to accept the most controversial parts of Wright's scheme in order to gain the benefits of some of his stresses and clarifications.
Thirdly, Wright has an unfortunate tendency to set up straw men in the sense that he often writes against caricatures of old perspective theology rather than the real thing. Whether this is because he fails to understand what previous generations of Reformed theologians actually taught, or whether he just can't be bothered reading them, is immaterial. The fact is that Wright often shows a shocking lack of familiarity with that Reformed theology has actually believed and taught. To give one example at the very heart of this whole debate, Wright characterises the Old Perspective of teaching that in the doctrine of justification the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers as righteousness because Christ fulfilling the law so as to store up a "treasury of merit" which can then be granted to believers. As far as I recall, no Reformed theologian has ever taught such a thing. It is rather that in Christ we gain the benefit of his own righteousness as someone who lived without ever having committed a sin. Another example with Wright's bizarre claim that the Old Perspective doesn't have an adequate place for the Holy Spirit. That is simply wrong. As we will see, the difference is that the Old Perspective does not assign the role to the Holy Spirit in justification that Wright gives him (and quite why Wright keeps on writing 'holy spirit' instead of Holy Spirit I don't know, but I found it odd).
Fourthly, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that Wright's view also contain serious errors. The one that stood out above others is Wright's doctrine of two-stage justification, one on the basis of faith in this life and the second on the basis of works at the Last Judgment. Wright's scheme almost says the same thing as Reformed orthodoxy in a different way, but not quite. By making 'the life lived' by believers a part of justification, albeit fencing it with the fact that the works concerned are the Holy Spirit's work, Wright cuts out a key part of the Christian's assurance. Despite his protestations that his scheme is more theo-centric than the Old Perspective (another bit of inaccurate revisionism at best), Wright's scheme actually encourages experiential navel gazing rather than looking to the objective work of Christ for justification. Rather than a two-stage justification, the New Testament talks about justification followed by sanctification. Wright's scheme confuses the two things. Reformed orthodoxy is that we are in the future justified according to works, but not on the basis of works. The difference between those statements is simply whether our works show that we are already justified (which they will) or whether our works are needed in order for us to be justified in the end (which they will not be). In my view he hopelessly confuses justification with sanctification (which is in effect Wright's second stage of justification!).
So, although Wright's book offers us much, in the end, there are significant problems with it that do not make me want to change from the Old Perspective. For every new insight that Wright offers, there are also problems with things he overlooks. An example would be the New Perspective's (and Wright's in particular) inadequate view of sin and the problem it creates for the human race. Many of the problems with the New Perspective stem from this in my view. For instance, if God's plan was to save the world through Israel, how was this to be established? The only way could have been through Christ, the only sinless human being to have lived since the Fall. To my mind, this undermines Wright's insistence on God's plan to save the world through Israel as such, if considered otherwise than through the promised Messiah. The New Testament teaches that only a sinless substitute of infinite merit could achieve the salvation of sinners. Only the Messiah could do it, which is precisely what the New Testament teaches (Acts 4:12).
To conclude, paraphrasing Wright himself, I submit that the Old Perspective can do everything the New Perspective wants to do but by a better route and with much more besides. And in the end, with its emphasis on sin and grace and the salvation of lost sinners, the Old Perspective is actually closer to Paul's vision than Wright's revision.
by Tom Wright
SPCK
This is the latest book by New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, in which he outlines his unique interpretation of the writings of the apostle Paul as they concern the subject of justification. As is well known, Wright is one of the key figures in the loose grouping of New Testament scholarship known for better or worse as the New Perspective on Paul. Wright is significant not only because he is the most popular, the clearest, and the most evangelical of the main scholars associated with the movement, and therefore the person whose teachings have made the most inroads into evangelicalism in Britain and the United States, but also because in this particular book, Wright confronts his many critics who come from "the Old Perspective" or more accurately, traditional evangelicalism and confessional Reformed theology. In particular, Wright's critic, John Piper who wrote a book critiquing the new perspective and Wright especially called The Future of Justification comes in for some stinging criticism.
Wright's central metaphor in the book is that the Old Perspective is like someone who insists the earth is the centre of the solar system because the sun rises and sets each day, whereas the New Perspective is (naturally in Wright's mind) like the person who realises the deeper truth that the sun is at the centre and the earth revolves around it. Of course this immediately sets up the idea that the Old Perspective is not only outdated and less sophisticated, but also simply untrue. That does more or less poison the well. The fact is that the choice is not between an unsophisticated and demonstrably untrue view of the Bible and a sophisticated and demonstrably true view. The choice is between two sophisticated views, one which has been understood and believed for centuries and which fits the Bible's testimony (I don't accept Wright's assertions otherwise) and one which has been more or less discovered by Wright himself and missed by every generation of theologians from the post-apostolic period till the 1970s. Of course it is possible Wright is correct and everyone else did get it wrong. But just going back to the texts in itself does not guarantee theological correctness. Not if you go back and interpret them in the wrong way!
Time and time again, Wright says that his opponents "don't get it" as if the only problem with his view is that the rest of us are a bit thick. Maybe that's not how he intended to come across, but I'm afraid that is how he comes across at times, and it is not an attractive quality. It compares poorly with Piper's gentleness and graciousness in dealing with Wright.
Despite many shortcomings, I like Wright. I like a lot of what he says. And a lot of what he says is absolutely biblical and solidly evangelical, even Reformed. Just look at his defence of the bodily resurrection of Christ for example, and the way in which the covenant lies at the heart of Wright's theology. There are aspects of his doctrine of justification that are also, it seems to me, entirely in harmony with the Bible, the Reformed confessions and the best of traditional evangelical scholarship and church teaching.
However, there are also massive problems with Wright's views on the subject of justification, and this book only clarifies that the problems are a clear and present danger to the church, rather than allay any such fears.
There are a number of points that should be borne in mind about Wright's teaching in this book (and his others for that matter - the latest book does not shift much ground from what Wright has previously said).
Firstly, much of what Wright says here would find ready agreement from many "old perspective" people. I think it was the New Testament scholar, I. Howard Marshall, who brilliantly summed up the New Perspective as being "right in what it affirms and wrong it what it denies." Amen to that! Wright, somewhat inexplicably, writes as if almost everything he teaches is revolutionary and was never noticed by Old Perspective traditionalist Reformed theologians like John Piper and many others like him. That's just not the case. Almost all of what Wright states about God's covenant and purposes has been said before by Reformed theologians, particularly in Reformed Biblical theology. It is quite clear from where Wright is coming from that he does not even have a rudimentary knowledge of covenant theology, far less a grasp of its historical development from Calvin to the present day. Otherwise he could not write with that "look what I alone have discovered" tone he sometimes displays.
Secondly, there are new insights that we need to hear and correctives we need to heed in Wright's teachings. The problem for us in dealing with the New Perspective is in sifting out the sound teaching - and there is much in Wright's work that is good and true - from the errors that pepper the book. Wright is correct in probably 75% of what he says. Justification is in part a matter of ecclesiology and of telling "who has membership of the covenant people." It does have ramifications for how we do church and how we treat each other as Christian brothers and sisters. But it does so precisely because all Christians are forgiven their sins and declared righteous in God's sight on the same basis - by Christ's work received in faith. Wright is right that in Reformed theology we have too often made salvation an individual and private matter and not fully realised the implications of the gospel in a corporate sense for the whole of creation. We have de-politicised the gospel and in that sense we have truncated the gospel. Wright is on the right track I believe in all these issues. But this is not the stuff that is actually in conflict with the Old Perspective, though sometimes Wright puts it as if rejecting some of what he says that we cannot agree with means we have to reject that which we can accept. Wright's views it seems to me help us gain a better understanding of how the Gospels and Letters in the New Testament fit together. But yet again, we do not need to accept the most controversial parts of Wright's scheme in order to gain the benefits of some of his stresses and clarifications.
Thirdly, Wright has an unfortunate tendency to set up straw men in the sense that he often writes against caricatures of old perspective theology rather than the real thing. Whether this is because he fails to understand what previous generations of Reformed theologians actually taught, or whether he just can't be bothered reading them, is immaterial. The fact is that Wright often shows a shocking lack of familiarity with that Reformed theology has actually believed and taught. To give one example at the very heart of this whole debate, Wright characterises the Old Perspective of teaching that in the doctrine of justification the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers as righteousness because Christ fulfilling the law so as to store up a "treasury of merit" which can then be granted to believers. As far as I recall, no Reformed theologian has ever taught such a thing. It is rather that in Christ we gain the benefit of his own righteousness as someone who lived without ever having committed a sin. Another example with Wright's bizarre claim that the Old Perspective doesn't have an adequate place for the Holy Spirit. That is simply wrong. As we will see, the difference is that the Old Perspective does not assign the role to the Holy Spirit in justification that Wright gives him (and quite why Wright keeps on writing 'holy spirit' instead of Holy Spirit I don't know, but I found it odd).
Fourthly, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that Wright's view also contain serious errors. The one that stood out above others is Wright's doctrine of two-stage justification, one on the basis of faith in this life and the second on the basis of works at the Last Judgment. Wright's scheme almost says the same thing as Reformed orthodoxy in a different way, but not quite. By making 'the life lived' by believers a part of justification, albeit fencing it with the fact that the works concerned are the Holy Spirit's work, Wright cuts out a key part of the Christian's assurance. Despite his protestations that his scheme is more theo-centric than the Old Perspective (another bit of inaccurate revisionism at best), Wright's scheme actually encourages experiential navel gazing rather than looking to the objective work of Christ for justification. Rather than a two-stage justification, the New Testament talks about justification followed by sanctification. Wright's scheme confuses the two things. Reformed orthodoxy is that we are in the future justified according to works, but not on the basis of works. The difference between those statements is simply whether our works show that we are already justified (which they will) or whether our works are needed in order for us to be justified in the end (which they will not be). In my view he hopelessly confuses justification with sanctification (which is in effect Wright's second stage of justification!).
So, although Wright's book offers us much, in the end, there are significant problems with it that do not make me want to change from the Old Perspective. For every new insight that Wright offers, there are also problems with things he overlooks. An example would be the New Perspective's (and Wright's in particular) inadequate view of sin and the problem it creates for the human race. Many of the problems with the New Perspective stem from this in my view. For instance, if God's plan was to save the world through Israel, how was this to be established? The only way could have been through Christ, the only sinless human being to have lived since the Fall. To my mind, this undermines Wright's insistence on God's plan to save the world through Israel as such, if considered otherwise than through the promised Messiah. The New Testament teaches that only a sinless substitute of infinite merit could achieve the salvation of sinners. Only the Messiah could do it, which is precisely what the New Testament teaches (Acts 4:12).
To conclude, paraphrasing Wright himself, I submit that the Old Perspective can do everything the New Perspective wants to do but by a better route and with much more besides. And in the end, with its emphasis on sin and grace and the salvation of lost sinners, the Old Perspective is actually closer to Paul's vision than Wright's revision.
Monday, 15 February 2010
In the Beginning
In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis
by Henri Blocher
Inter-Varsity Press
This is an excellent and scholarly work on the opening chapters of Genesis by the French Reformed theologian, Henri Blocher.
Although my main interest in reading the book was for Blocher's explanation of the framework hypothesis for Genesis chapter one, the book actually deals with most of Genesis 1-11. This is not a commentary, it is a theological exposition.
Blocher is not afraid to take both scientists and literalists to task for their approaches to creation, though he clearly has some sympathy with creationists, who at least take the Bible seriously.
Blocher is not afraid to see some non-literal elements in Genesis, not only in the creation week of chapter one, but also in the method of creating Eve in Genesis 2 and in the talking snake of Genesis 3. I think it fair to say Blocher does see elements of myth in these first three chapters of the Bible, but only in the sense that they convey historical events in non-historical ways.
I would not be as reluctant as Blocher to take some of the elements in Genesis 2 and 3 literally, but I think he does a good job of showing that believing in the truth and trustworthiness of the Bible is not tied to a strict literalist approach to Genesis.
Blocher is thorough in his explanation of why Genesis One should be read as a non-chronological framework, written with a polemical, didactic and doxological purpose. He notes the recurring patterns of the numbers 3, 7 and 10 for example, the parallelism of the days, and other elements and concludes that neither the original writer or his readers would have taken the narrative in the literal manner adopted by modern day creationists.
This book is thoroughly recommended to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of the framework view of Genesis One. It is not an easy read however as it deals with a wide range of biblical scholarship including literalists like Morris and Whitcomb, and treating all with respect and openness to their point of view, even if he cannot accept it.
by Henri Blocher
Inter-Varsity Press
This is an excellent and scholarly work on the opening chapters of Genesis by the French Reformed theologian, Henri Blocher.
Although my main interest in reading the book was for Blocher's explanation of the framework hypothesis for Genesis chapter one, the book actually deals with most of Genesis 1-11. This is not a commentary, it is a theological exposition.
Blocher is not afraid to take both scientists and literalists to task for their approaches to creation, though he clearly has some sympathy with creationists, who at least take the Bible seriously.
Blocher is not afraid to see some non-literal elements in Genesis, not only in the creation week of chapter one, but also in the method of creating Eve in Genesis 2 and in the talking snake of Genesis 3. I think it fair to say Blocher does see elements of myth in these first three chapters of the Bible, but only in the sense that they convey historical events in non-historical ways.
I would not be as reluctant as Blocher to take some of the elements in Genesis 2 and 3 literally, but I think he does a good job of showing that believing in the truth and trustworthiness of the Bible is not tied to a strict literalist approach to Genesis.
Blocher is thorough in his explanation of why Genesis One should be read as a non-chronological framework, written with a polemical, didactic and doxological purpose. He notes the recurring patterns of the numbers 3, 7 and 10 for example, the parallelism of the days, and other elements and concludes that neither the original writer or his readers would have taken the narrative in the literal manner adopted by modern day creationists.
This book is thoroughly recommended to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of the framework view of Genesis One. It is not an easy read however as it deals with a wide range of biblical scholarship including literalists like Morris and Whitcomb, and treating all with respect and openness to their point of view, even if he cannot accept it.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Postmillennialism
Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
by Keith A. Mathison
P & R Publishing
Most of the books I have read on eschatology have been written from the Reformed amillennial perspective that I agree with. It made a refreshing change to read a book from a different perspective. Postmillennialism by Keith A. Mathison is a well-written, clear and winsome defence of historic, evangelical postmillennialism.
The book is written in six parts. Firstly, Mathison deals with the key question of hermeneutics and establishes a few ground rules, including his conservative, Reformed and covenant theology credentials. Secondly, there is a historical review to show that postmillennialism has long been a respectable choice among Christian theologians. The third and fourth parts are the heart of book and deal in turn with a number of Old and New Testament passages. The discussion of the Psalms, Old Testament prophecies, gospel discourses and the Book of Revelation are essential reading, even if only to disagree with Mathison's exegesis. The fifth part tackles eschatology from a theological standpoint and includes criticisms of both premillennialism and amillennialism. The sixth and final part seeks to answer a number of objections that have been raised against postmillennialism.
Mathison defines postmillennialism not so much with regard to the literalism of the 1000 year period mentioned in Revelation 20. Although his approach allows for this, his position seems to favour the view that the 1000 years represent the whole of the church age from Christ's ascension till his second coming.
You might then ask, isn't that what amillennialists believe? And you would be right. So, what's the difference between Mathison's brand of postmillennialism and amillennialism? The answer is that, according to Mathison, postmillennialism is optimistic and amillennialism is pessimistic about the success of the gospel and Christ's reign on earth between now and the second coming.
Postmillennialists think that most or almost all the world will be Christians by the time Christ comes and it will be a golden age of peace and prosperity. Amillennialists think that though the number of Christians will continue to grow and Christ's kingdom will advance, there is no expectation that it will be as extensive as the postmillennialists claim. We also see in a number of biblical passages that there will also be increased opposition to Christ's kingdom and persecution of Christ's people.
The postmillennialist case hinges really on a system of biblical interpretation known as preterism. Preterism is the teaching that most or all the "negative" prophecies such as Matthew 24 that talk about apostasy, persecution and suffering for God's people relate to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD 70 when Christ is said to have returned to earth in judgment on Israel. Such prophecies were future when written, but happened in our past. Mathison follows this approach consistently throughout the book.
This is a very handy hermeneutic. If a passage doesn't fit with postmillennialisms rosy picture of the future, it is simply dumped in a file labelled "fulfilled in AD 70". The book of Revelation is itself dated by postmillennialists as earlier than AD 70, to accommodate the preterist view, though this view is hotly debated by New Testament scholars.
It must be understood that Mathison is not an extreme preterist. He does understand there still to be some prophecies with a future fulfilment to come, especially Christ's triumphant return to earth.
Amillennialists interpret Scripture differently. We tend to see the persecution and apostasy prophecies as being yet future and the joyful prophecies of peace, prosperity and Christ's reign are either interpreted spiritually, as applying to the Church and Christ's people, or are regarded as prophecies to be fulfilled in the new heaven and earth to come after Christ returns.
Mathison's argument essentially stands or falls with preterism. If you accept that, then postmillennialism is a viable option. If you don't, then there are just too many prophecies at odds with it. For myself, I remain unconvinced.
I also reject the pessimistic label. Our objection to the postmillennialist vision of a golden age of peace prior to the end of this world is not based on lack of faith that God could bring this about, but upon loyalty to Scripture and what God has said will happen in this age. We are not only optimistic, we are certain that the gospel will triumph, indeed is triumphing now, and Christ will reign and does reign now, as king of the world and God's Messiah. We know God's purpose is being fulfilled perfectly in time to achieve his appointed ends. I see no reason for pessimism about any of that!
In the end, this is a good book defending a position I disagree with. That never makes it comfortable reading, but it is not enough to outweigh the arguments in favour of amillennialism. I cannot disagree with the Second Helvetic Confession's view in Chapter XI:
We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.Indeed they do and I cannot accept the preterist view that all those chapters were fulfilled in AD 70.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Moving Church
I have been in Bridgeton St Francis-in-the-east Church since I was six years old. In the course of the last 30 years I have been involved with so many activities it is hard to remember them all, but they have included:
The main reason was simply the distance involved in travelling from where we live now to Bridgeton.
After spending a bit of time looking for a new fellowship that would suit us both, we've now settled in Sandyford Henderson Memorial Church in the West End of Glasgow. It's been a really welcoming church with excellent biblical teaching from the minister, Peter White, and the elders, and a real commitment to corporate prayer, local outreach and warm fellowship.
I'm hoping to get involved in the life of my new congregation in as many ways as I can once my membership is formally transferred over probably in the next month or so.
Although sad to be leaving so many old friends, it is good that the move was not as a result of any reason within my old church except the distance it is away, and so there is no ill-will involved. Indeed, I am hoping to continue supporting the church in Bridgeton in any ways I can, while making my focus on my new church family in Sandyford.
- Congregational Board member
- Sunday School teacher
- Welcome Team
- Church Pianist
- Choir Leader
- Church Magazine Editor
- Fabric Committee Member
- Worship Planner
- Leading Bible studies
- Leading Worship and Preaching
- Outreach Work
- Elder
The main reason was simply the distance involved in travelling from where we live now to Bridgeton.
After spending a bit of time looking for a new fellowship that would suit us both, we've now settled in Sandyford Henderson Memorial Church in the West End of Glasgow. It's been a really welcoming church with excellent biblical teaching from the minister, Peter White, and the elders, and a real commitment to corporate prayer, local outreach and warm fellowship.
I'm hoping to get involved in the life of my new congregation in as many ways as I can once my membership is formally transferred over probably in the next month or so.
Although sad to be leaving so many old friends, it is good that the move was not as a result of any reason within my old church except the distance it is away, and so there is no ill-will involved. Indeed, I am hoping to continue supporting the church in Bridgeton in any ways I can, while making my focus on my new church family in Sandyford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)