Tag: Bible

Initial Thoughts on the New, Updated NIV

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

For years, the NIV has been the most loved, and most hated of the modern Bible versions produced in the 20th Century. Many of us who used to be KJV-only advocates used to reserve our sharpest criticisms for the NIV. Perhaps that background is one of the reasons many of us still are hesitant to use it. We just prefer a more literal approach to Bible translation for various reasons.

With the advent of Today’s New International Version, there was an outcry about gender neutral language run too far. Partly as a result of this controversy, the English Standard Version was produced. The ESV is a conservative remake of the somewhat liberal Revised Standard Version. And the ESV took the Bible market by storm, as many Reformed pastors and teachers have made it their Bible of choice. It is making inroads into non-Reformed segments of Christianity as well.

Along the way, people like Leland Ryken, John Piper and Wayne Grudem have had some not so flattering things to say about the NIV, and especially the TNIV. And many other conservative scholars have concurred. At issue are the many places where the NIV smooths over the text to make nice sounding English, but in the process obscures the presence of important connector words like “for” and other features of the text which influence its interpretation. Many feel the NIV makes too many interpretive choices for its readers. Of course the gender neutrality of the TNIV is not a problem in the NIV, but the direction the TNIV took seems to be far afield of where conservative scholarship thinks we should go with respect to Scriptural integrity.

In light of this reaction, I was initially hopeful that the announcement of a new NIV update might promise a turn toward a better direction for the NIV. After reading the translators’ notes about the new update, I am inclined to think it actually is the positive change I was hoping for. In several cases they move toward a greater transparency to the original text. They restore many of the missing “for”s, and the gender neutral language concerns seem for the most part to be satisfactorily addressed. The tack they take is not much different than the ESV which also uses some gender neutral language in an attempt to employ contemporary English.

In this whole process I was also pleased to learn that the publishing house has little control, if any, over the actual text of the Bible translation. The translation aspects of the NIV are kept separate from the publishing and marketing arm of spreading the finished product abroad.

I encourage you to read the translator’s notes on this important update for yourself. You can also see a video introduction of the text by Douglas Moo, the chair of the translation committee. Furthermore, there are several comparison tools available for comparing the 1984 NIV text, and the TNIV and now the new 2011 NIV Update edition. BibleGateway can do that. And a couple other sites have comparison tools for comparing the various manifestations of the NIV: This site has a drop down menu to pull up the text a chapter at a time. This one offers several different comparison points between the editions.

I think this whole update was handled transparently and honestly. I believe it is a good sign that evangelicalism as a whole has a careful concern for the text of Scripture and aren’t just ready to adopt any translation that can be made. The respect and care with which the translators of the NIV handle their work has been apparent through the whole process. I think the end result will prove to be a blessing to the wider church, even with the presence of other useful, conservatively produced translations. May this lead to a greater unity and a lessening of the “Bible wars” which have been transpiring in the last decade or so. I for one, am eager to get a copy of this new NIV, to see how it compares with my ESV.

One last word: check out Rick Mansfield’s review of the updated NIV. I’m sure more reviews will be forthcoming, in the next few weeks.

~cross posted from my team KJV Only debate blog

Reformation Week: John Calvin on Perseverance

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

In his commentary on Hebrews, chapter 6, John Calvin made the following observation:

“…the grace of God is offered to us in vain, except we receive the promise by faith, and constantly cherish it in the bosom of our heart.”

This small quote packs a punch. The Reformation doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, is much maligned and little understood today. But Calvin’s words hit to the essence of it. By faith, we receive God’s promises, and then we continually cling to them throughout our lives. True believers, will constantly cherish God’s promises. And that is the mark of their genuine faith.

Consider the following verses:

  • One is reconciled according to Col. 1:23 “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard….”
  • “the gospel… preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word… preached to you””unless you believed in vain.” 1 Cor. 15:1-2
  • Some “believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away” Luke 8:13
  • In contrast to that, Mark 13:13 says “the one who endures to the end will be saved.”
  • John 8:31 says “if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”
  • And Rom. 8:13 says “if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live”
  • And 1 John 2:3 counsels us “by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments”

Ultimately this perseverance is energized by the Spirit and accomplished by God Who is completing the work He began in us. But Phil. 2:12-13 teaches us that we still need to cooperate in this work: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

A few of my previous posts deal with this topic at more depth. Most notably is my post Once Saved, Always Saved?!?! Also check out the posts in my category “Perseverance“.

Quotes to Note 20: Ulrich Zwingli on the Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The following is excerpted from Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. (IVP, 2010). The quotes by Zwingli are from his Commentary on True and False Religion, written in 1525.

Ulrich Zwingli also stressed the mercy of God for the justification of unworthy sinners. He wrote, “This is the gospel, that sins are remitted in the name of Christ; and no heart ever received tidings more glad.” Zwingli proceeded to expand on this teaching, eventually stating:

“For when man through repentance has come to the knowledge of himself, he finds nothing but utter despair. Hence, wholly distrusting himself, he is forced to take refuge in the mercy of God. But when he has begun to do that, justice makes him afraid. Then Christ appears, who has satisfied the divine justice for our trespasses. When once there is faith in Him, then salvation is found; for He is the infallible pledge of God’s mercy.“

He wrapped up his treatment by asserting: “Through Christ alone we are given salvation, blessedness, grace, pardon, and all that makes us in any way worthy in the sight of a righteous God.“ (pg. 120)

Help for Understanding Issues Relating to Conscience and Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Bill Busshaus at the Christian Communicators Worldwide blog, recently published a helpful “Outline for Understanding Issues of Conscience and Legalism“. I may have a minor quibble on a couple of his points, but I thought most of it to be quite sound. It may prove a help to some of my readers. I’d like to excerpt a few sections of it, and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Most of us have seen the movie “Chariots of Fire” and have been greatly encouraged by the example of Eric Liddell who refused to compete in races on Sunday. But if a Christian held a different position regarding what is allowed on Sunday, could that believer be just as dedicated to Christ with his differing opinion?

…As much as we would like to consider all of our personal convictions as biblical absolutes, the fact of the matter is, they may not be. Consider just a few historical examples of convictions of personal conscience in order to see how each might demand that his side of the position is an absolute:

* Vegetable vs. Meat diet
* Honoring the Mosaic sabbath day vs. Considering all days alike
* Not eating meat sacrificed to idols vs. All things are clean
* Participating in war vs. Pacifism
* Going to the theater, dancing, or playing cards vs. Abstaining from the world
* Drinking wine vs. Being a teetotaler
* Playing sports on Sunday vs. Abstaining from “your own pleasure”
* Gun ownership vs. Nonviolence
* Political Candidate “A” vs. Political candidate “B”
* Wearing makeup or dying your hair vs. The God-given “natural” look

We must be honest and careful in these matters. Just because an issue is not presented in the Law of Christ does not mean that God has nothing to say about it. There are biblical principles which must guide us in matters of personal conviction.

Instruction from Romans Chapter Fourteen and Fifteen:

1. We must accept one another when we differ on matters of personal conviction. 14:1, 15:1, 7
2. We must not be on a campaign to convert others to our position. 14:1, 22, 15:1
3. There are stronger and weaker positions. 14:2, 15:1
4. We must not judge others or view with contempt those who differ with us on these matters. 14:3
5. We are individually accountable to God, and will indeed have to give an account of our behavior to Him. 14:4, 10-12.
6. We must be convinced in our own minds; that is, there must be no doubt in our minds as to the acceptableness of our position. 14:5
7. It is possible for Christians with differing conscientious convictions to be pleasing to the Lord. 14:6
8. The goal is to ascribe to Christ His rightful position as Lord. 14:7-10
9. Don’t let your liberty of conscience cause a brother to stumble. 14:13, 21
10. All things are clean that are not forbidden, but I can’t proceed with a doubting conscience. 14:14
11. Do not practice your liberty in such a manner that will cause offense; this would violate the law of love. 14:15, 20
12. Temporal matters are not central to the Kingdom of God, but it is the eternal things wrought by the Spirit that should be our focus. 14:17
13. Remember that your personal convictions are between you and God. 14:22
14. Never violate your conscience. You cannot do so without sinning. 14:23
15. We should strive to be at peace, and to please the other for his edification. 14:19, 15:1-2

…

Legalism is:

1. Distorting the gospel by adding conditions to free grace: Acts 15:1, 7-11; Gal.1:6-7, 2:11-16, 4:8-11, Gal. 5:2-4; Col.2:16-17
2. Substituting man-made regulations for the Word of God: Matthew 15:1-3
3. Majoring on the minors and neglecting the more important issues: Luke 11:42
4. Overconcern with the externals while disregarding matters of the heart: Matthew 23:27
5. Regarding with contempt or judging a brother based on matters of personal conviction: Romans 14:1-5
6. Trusting in ourselves that we are righteous based on religious performance: Luke 18:9-14
7. Hypocrisy, the leaven of the Pharisees: Luke 11:53-12:1

Legalism is not:

1. A zeal for the commandments of Christ: Matthew 5:19; I Corinthians 7:19
2. A ministry that teaches others to follow Christ in obedience: Matthew 28:20; I Thes.4:1-2
3. Strong personal convictions (as long as they are not required of others): Romans 14:2,5
4. Man-made restrictions for personal protection from sinful habits (as long as we do not begin to view them as binding on others): Romans 13:14; I Corinthians 6:12
5. A zeal for good works: Eph.2:10; Titus 1:16, 2:7, 14, 3:8, 14
6. Limiting our liberty for the benefit of others: Romans 14:15, 21, 15:2; Acts 16:1-3
7. Obedience: John 14:15, 23, 15:10; I John 2:3-5, 5:2-4

I’ve only given you some of what Bill collects in his post. He gives a list of biblical principles to guide our conduct as well. I encourage you to give it a read and come back and let me know what you think.

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.