Autumn Sermon Series: Learning from the Tabernacle & Doing Church God's Way

“You must make it according to all that I show you—the pattern of the tabernacle as well as the pattern of all its furnishings.” Ex 25:9 HCSB 

The Tabernacle and its furniture
Wikimedia commons

I'm excited as I start to think and pray about our new Sunday morning sermon series, starting in September, about the Tabernacle.

Have you ever tried to read through Bible, from cover to cover? Have you ever given up? If so, my guess is that you gave up half way through Exodus. From Genesis 1 to Exodus 20, there is one continuous, fascinating story. Then in Exodus 21 to 24 are some obscure laws, then in chapters 25 to 31 are endless technical details about how to build a large tent called the Tabernacle. This is not exciting reading! Chapters 32 to 34 are a little more interesting, but then chapters 35 to 40 describe how the Israelites built the Tabernacle, and most of the boring details of chapters 25 to 31 are repeated! Why would God do this? Probably, to make it as clear as possible to us that the Tabernacle is very, very important to Him.

We will start the series with an overview of the Tabernacle, demonstrating how it is a three dimensional representation of the Gospel. Then we will look in detail at all the parts of the Tabernacle and use them to understand how they continue to represent God's priorities for us as a church today.

God still wants to dwell among His people, but He wants to do it on His terms. Please start praying for this series and let's continue to build our church according to the pattern God has given us.

Sermon Titles

1. The Tabernacle: A 3D map of the Gospel:  Ex. 25-40
2. Building The Church God’s Way: Ex. 25:9. The Lampstand: God Gives Light To Sinners. Ex. 25:31-40, 27:20-21.
3. God at the centre: The Ark: God Reigns Over Sinners. Ex. 25:10-22.
4. God separate from sinners. The veil. Ex. 26:31-37
5. Getting the Gospel right. The Altar: God Saves Sinners. 27:1-8.
6. The Holy Spirit. The anointing oil. Ex. 30:22-38.
7. Sanctification: The Laver: God Cleanses Sinners. Ex. 30:17-21.
8. Invitingly different: The curtain and the court: Ex 27:9-19.
Getting worship right: The golden calf. Ex 32:1-29.
9. Prayer: The Incense: God Hears Sinners. Ex. 30:1-10. Ex. 32:30-33:6
10. Focus on Jesus. Ex: 33:7-34:7, 34:29-35.
11. Fellowship together: The Table of Presence and the Showbread. Ex. 25:23-30 and the golden frames and crossbars Ex. 26:15-30.
12. God’s mighty promise to us, and ours to Him and one another. Ex: 34:
13. Giving and building together: The ransom fee, Ex. 30:11-17,  Bezalel and Hur. The giving of the people and the building of the Tabernacle. Ex. 31:1-11, 35:4-40:38.

With great privileges, come great responsibilities Heb 10:19-25

1. Privilege of access to God

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place

2. Privilege at a cost

by the blood of Jesus,  20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 

3. Privilege of a friend in high places

21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 

1. Responsibility to pray

22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 

2. Responsibility to know our doctrine and stand up for it

23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 

3. Responsibility to live out our faith in love and good deeds

24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 

4. Responsibility to regularly attend public worship

25a Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing,

5. Responsibility to

25b but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Jesus and suffering

People have been struggling with the question of why does God allow suffering and injustice since the time of Habakkuk:

“How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore, the law is paralysed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.”
(Habakkuk 1:2–4)

The same cry from the heart comes up again repeatedly in the Psalms, in Job, in Lamentations, and God never rejects anyone because they ask these hard questions. In fact, we need to remember that it was the Holy Spirit who was leading these men to ask these things in the first place.

One of the things that makes me trust the Bible so much is that it is so honest. It frequently tells us truths that we’d probably not want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3 warns us, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” If you watch most of the stuff on the so-called “Christian TV” channels on Satellite TV, they are full of teachers who like to say things like, ‘if you only have enough faith, God will bless you and free you from your problems.’ That’s a popular message because it tells people what their itching ears want to hear. Not surprisingly, many of these TV preachers then say that you would need to start showing this faith by sending in money to them… so that they can show us how much God has blessed them!

On the other hand, the Bible is honest about the realities of living in a broken, sin-cursed world and the hardships we often must endure for following Christ. The Bible tells us exactly what we don’t want to hear:

 Jesus said, "anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:38)

 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16:2)

“For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.” (Philippians 1:29–30)

“We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body.” (2 Corinthians 4:8–11)

“We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God’s fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them. In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know.” (1 Thessalonians 3:2–4)

So, why does God allow suffering?

The Bible is frustrating. Habakkuk never really gets a direct answer to his question in Hab. 1:2–4. Job never really gets a direct answer to his questions. Nor does Jeremiah in Lamentations. Instead, God does something far dramatic. God becomes one of us. God himself becomes a human being, born in poverty, as a member of a hated race, in a country under a brutal military occupation. God himself experienced rejection and misunderstanding by his own family (Mark 3:21), betrayal by his closest friends, an unjust trial, brutal torture and one of the most humiliating and painful forms of capital punishment ever invented.

Rather than giving us an abstract theological or philosophical explanation of why He allows suffering, God gives us something far more satisfying; He reassures us that He not only cares about human suffering, He has experienced human suffering and injustice in the most extreme forms imaginable. The one thing we cannot accuse God of is indifference to suffering, when He has suffered so much Himself, on our behalf.

Have you ever been  through a hard time in life? Perhaps you've faced an illness, or divorce, or lost a loved one. If so, you will probably know how much more comforting it is to speak to someone who has been through the same experience. That is exactly what we have in Jesus. When He listens to you He does not sit there like a professional psychiatrist, taking note and nodding. When you tell Jesus about that person who betrayed you, He is like the friend who says, "I know exactly how you feel. I was betrayed by my best friend too..." When you tell Him about how much it hurts now that your loved one has died, He is like the friend who says, "I know how you feel. I stood at the entrance of the tomb of my friend and wept." Whatever your sorrow, whatever your heartache, whatever your hurt, you have in Jesus someone who has experienced it all Himself. “made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God,” (Hebrews 2:17)

What's the alternative?

We now live in a culture that is lead by practical and actual atheists. The practical atheists may allow for the possibility of God, some of them even go to church, but their god is irrelevant to any of the real concerns of life. Obviously, the actual atheists are in much smaller numbers, but neither party has anything helpful or comforting to say about suffering. In fact, most of them prefer to bury their heads in the sand and completely ignore the implications of their beliefs. In a consistent atheist's beliefs about the world, human beings are just one collection of chemicals among many others which all passed through the same unguided, purposeless processes of evolution to produce life. In this worldview, pain and suffering have no purpose other than to signal to animals what in their environment may prevent them from reproducing. These chemical and electrical signals in the brains of animals are no different in nature to chemicals and electrical phenomena in the non-living world. For a consistent atheist, suffering has no more real meaning than love does. They are merely delusions conjured up by chemicals and electrons. With this as the predominant worldview, no wonder so many people are depressed!

The purposes of suffering

Thankfully we do live in a world that has a purpose, and even suffering can have a purpose. Without pain we’d burn our hands off, cut fingers off and cause all sorts of damage to ourselves and others. Pain tell us that something is wrong and that we need to take action. In this sense, pain is a gift from God which proves that He cares for us. Other types of pain, such as emotional pain, remind us that God’s laws are for our blessing, and if only everyone would obey them there would be much much less suffering in the world. This pain reminds us that humans were created to live in a very good world, we messed it up, and now live in a broken world filled with suffering. We are so broken by the Fall, we cannot do the good things that would alleviate suffering and we keep doing things that cause suffering. Pain is a constant reminder that we cannot save ourselves. Despite this God had another use for suffering. He chose to lay the sufferings of the world on His own Son as He died for us on the cross. God has used this suffering to save us. This means that for all Christians, we have been saved from an eternity of suffering and separation from God, because our eternal Saviour suffered our lost eternity in our place. Yes, we may suffer, but our suffering will only be temporary in this world, but soon Jesus will call us to Himself and we will be delivered from all the sufferings of this short life. We will swap them for an eternity of joy with HIm. Suffering is also temporary for this world as well. Jesus promised us that He would return and when He does, He will restore all things. There will be new heavens and a new earth, and God “will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4).

3. Comparisons between the 1984 NIV, the 2011 NIV, ESV and HSCB

The ESV uses more gender-inclusive language than the 1984 NIV, but avoids the inaccuracies of the 2011 NIV. The HSCB does so too, but not every time. 

Notes on why the Greek 'antropos', which used to be translated as generic 'man' in the 1984 NIV and is now translated as the more obviously gender neutral 'person' are at the bottom of this page. 

1984 NIV, 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

2011 NIV, 1 Corinthians 2:15

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,

ESV, 1 Corinthians 2:15

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and  he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The  spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

HSCB, 1 Corinthians 2:15

But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone.




1984 NIV, 2 Pet. 2:19

They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.


2011 NIV, 2 Pet. 2:19

They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity – for ‘people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.’

ESV, 2 Pet. 2:19

They promise them  freedom,  but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

HSCB, 2 Pet. 2:19

They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, since people are enslaved to whatever defeats them.




1984 NIV, James 5:16

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

2011 NIV, James 5:16

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

ESV, James 5:16

Therefore,  confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,  that you may be healed.  The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

HSCB, James 5:16

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The urgent request of a righteous person is very powerful in its effect.




1984 NIV, James 2:20    

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

2011 NIV, James 2:20

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

ESV, James 2:20

Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

HSCB, James 2:20

Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless?





1984 NIV, 2 Th. 3:14

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

2011 NIV, 2 Th. 3:14

Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed.

ESV, 2 Th. 3:14

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and  have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

HSCB, 2 Th. 3:14

And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take note of that person; don’t associate with him, so that he may be ashamed.





1984 NIV, Gal. 2:16

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

2011 NIV, Gal. 2:16

 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

ESV, Gal. 2:16

yet we know that  a person is not justified  by works of the law  but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law,  because by works of the law no one will be justified.

HSCB, Gal. 2:16

know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.





1984 NIV, 1Cor. 11:28

A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

2011 NIV, 1Cor. 11:28

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

ESV, 1Cor. 11:28

Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

HSCB, 1Cor. 11:28

So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat the bread and drink from the cup.




1984 NIV, 1Cor. 6:18

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

2011 NIV, 1Cor. 6:18

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

ESV, 1Cor. 6:18

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin  a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person  sins against his own body.

HSCB, 1Cor. 6:18

 Run from sexual immorality! “Every sin a person can commit is outside the body.” On the contrary, the person who is sexually immoral sins against his own body.



1984 NIV, Rom. 14:5

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

2011 NIV, Rom. 14:5

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

ESV, Rom. 14:5

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

HSCB, Rom. 14:5

One person considers one day to be above another day. Someone else considers every day to be the same. Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind.




1984 NIV, Rom. 13:1  

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,

2011 NIV, Rom. 13:1

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities,

ESV, Rom. 13:1  

Let every person  be subject to the governing authorities.

HSCB, Rom. 13:1

Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God.





1984 NIV, Rom. 10:5

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.”

2011 NIV, Rom. 10:5

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: ‘The person who does these things will live by them.’

ESV, Rom. 10:5

For  Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that  the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

HSCB, Rom 10:5

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is from the law: The one who does these things will live by them.




1984 NIV, Rom. 5:7

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.

2011 NIV, Rom 5:7

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.

ESV, Rom. 5:7

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—

HSCB, Rom. 5:7

For rarely will someone die for a just person—though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.




1984 NIV, John 3:27

To this John replied, “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven.

2011 NIV,

To this John replied, ‘A person can receive only what is given them from heaven.

ESV, John 3:27

John answered,  “A person cannot receive even one thing  unless it is given him  from heaven.

HSCB, John 3:27

John responded, “No one can receive a single thing unless it’s given to him from heaven.





1984 NIV, Luke 18:25

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

2011 NIV, Luke 18:25

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

ESV, Luke 18:25

For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter  the kingdom of God.

HSCB, Luke 18:25

For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.





1984 NIV, Luke 6:45

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

2011 NIV, Luke 6:45

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.


ESV, Luke 6:45

The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces  evil,  for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

HSCB, Luke 6:45

A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart.

Conclusion

This last quote from Luke 6:45 is actually more gender-inclusive than the 2011 NIV, but in every case quoted above the ESV uses gender-inclusive language where the 1984 NIV does not, and the HSCB normally does. Clearly, both the ESV and the HSCB are trying to be sensitive to this issue where ever the Greek text will allow it to be, but unlike the 2011 NIV, it does not impose gender-inclusive language onto the text where the Greek does not allow it.

We are left with several questions that still need answering, such as: Is God sexist? Were the apostles sexist? Why didn't they use more gender-inclusive language? Why are men at the centre of the Bible's stories and why are women marginalised? However, all of these are theological questions which I hope to answer later. For now, I want to remain focused on the issue of which Bible translation we should choose as a pew Bible for the church.


The fact is that about half of the 1984 NIV pew Bibles in church are looking brown and a bit worn. They may last another couple of years, but sooner or later they will need replaced and replacing them with other 1984 NIVs is no longer an option. I hope I’ve made a reasonable case for why I’ve recommended to the elders that we replace the pew Bibles with the either the ESV or the HSCB rather than the 2011 NIV.

2. Why it is hard to chose a new Bible translation

Source: Wikicommons

The Limits of Every Language

“Then I saw another angel flying in mid-air, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.” (Revelation 14:6 )

God's greatest desire is to see the gospel proclaimed in every human language, and although English is today the global language of business and politics, God is not demanding that we teach the world English, but that we translate the Bible into the world's languages. That is a mind-blowingly difficult task, especially when you start to understand how bewilderingly different languages can be.

For example gender pronouns such as he or she do not exist in the Yoruba language spoken in Nigeria. Words like brother, sister, and son /daughter also do not exist. The most important organizing category is age. Therefore, people are classified by whether they are egbun (older sibling) or aburo (younger sibling). In order to say brother, one would need to say aburo mi okunrin ( this roughly translates to my younger sibling, the male). Hungarian also does not have gender-specific pronouns. In Hungarian, the pronoun " ő " means "she/he" or "person". In other words, if you read a sentence in Hungarian which said, "ő was walking," you couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman walking. 

 
English is not Yoruba, and Greek and Hebrew are not Hungarian. Each language is full of surprises, idiosyncrasies, strengths and weaknesses. It should not surprise us that God chose more than one language to reveal His perfect will to all of humanity. Hebrew is a Sematic language, Greek is a European language and neither of them use our alphabet. Both are the products of fallen and often sinful cultures, yet God chose to embrace all of these strengths and weakness and use them to perfectly express His infallible, inerrant Word to us. The fact that we are going to take this seriously does not give us the excuse to pretend that these languages are any more perfect than they really are, nor that they are any more deficient than they really are. It should also humble us not to jump to any hasty conclusions. We should not pretend that we can have more certainty about some issues than God was willing to give to the original readers in the original languages and in their original context. 

 

A more complicated culture today

Since the NIV was translated in 1984, America has seen the rise of what they call "the culture wars" between conservatives and progressives. Progressives have sought to create a fair and just society by changing everything in society, (including the definition of marriage) in a quest to liberate oppressed people. The goal of progressives is to have equality of outcomes. For them a just and fair society would be one where the vast majority of people have similar levels of education and prosperity.
Conservatives in America have been fighting just as hard to create a fair and just society by seeking to conserve the traditional definition of marriage and focusing on equality of opportunity rather than of outcomes. A just and fair society for them would be one where everyone, regardless of sex, class or race has equal access to the law, to the education system and to jobs. If this creates an unequal society, that is attributed to the fact that people are not equal because people are not the same. Some people are tall, some short, some clever and some less so, some are focused on material gain, others are focused on non-material goals. However, by seeking to provide equal access to the law, to education and to the free market, everyone is supposed to have the same opportunity to fulfil their potential, if they choose to. 

A practical example of these profoundly different ways of looking at the world has been the desire of both progressives and conservatives in America to see African Americans escape poverty. Progressives have sought to achieve this by requiring universities to meet quotas and accept lower grades from African Americans to be admitted to their courses. American conservatives, on the other hand, have been arguing that justice and fairness are better served by treating African Americans in exactly the same way as non-African Americans.

Why talk about America and controversial things like this? Partly because virtually all English Bible translations are started, funded and lead by Americans, and partially because British culture has been wrestling with similar issues and is deeply influenced by American culture. As a result, the majority of people are bringing questions to the Bible which were only being asked by a minority in 1984 when the NIV was first translated. Both American and British society has much stronger views about these issues than it did in the 1980s. 

Part of this cultural shift has been the desire to avoid excluding women in language. In 1969 Neil Armstrong gave one of the most famous quotes in the English language: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” If the first moon landing happened today he would have to say, "That's one small step for a human, one giant leap for humanity.” or face a barrage of criticism in the media. Some of us may agree that this is an important principle of fairness, others of us may dismiss it as just being a bit silly, but we all must acknowledge that it is very much a part of our culture today.
It would be remiss of any Bible translator to just ignore this reality. Paul says in Romans 14:13, Rom. 14:13 "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” (1984 NIV). As we seek to reach out with the gospel to this unbelieving culture we also need to make sure that we do not place an unnecessary stumbling block in the path of unbelievers on their journey to Christ. 

 
We now need to weigh up the pros and cons of using a gender-inclusive language Bible translation.

Gender Inclusive Language and the Bible

Unlike Hungarian, English, and both Hebrew and Greek have gender-based pronouns. When it comes to translating those pronouns, we have more opportunity to have an English translation that reflects the original languages than is possible in Hungarian.

For example, the word-for-word NKJV captures the Hebrew of Genesis 19:26 well in English:

“But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."

Now read this in "Hungarian" (or rather in English using Hungarian gender neutral pronouns):

“But his wife looked back behind ő , and ő became a pillar of salt.” 

Does this mean:

“But his wife looked back behind him and he became a pillar of salt.”

Or does it mean:

“But his wife looked back behind her and she became a pillar of salt.”

Or even:

“But his wife looked back behind her and he became a pillar of salt.” 

If you look at the context you can work out who became the pillar of salt, but it isn't obvious in the sentence all by itself. 

Changing a language is a very difficult thing. Verbs, nouns, adverbs and adjectives do change over time in English. Think of what gay used to mean, what it means now a nd the new meaning children sometimes give it in the playground; (weak, or contemptible). But the basic structure of a language and internal logic of a language are much more difficult to change. 

Recently, Guardian columnist Lucy Mangan called for a new gender-neutral pronoun to be created and used: 

"The whole pronouns-must-agree-with-antecedents thing causes me utter agony. Do you know how many paragraphs I’ve had to tear down and rebuild because you can’t say, “Somebody left their cheese in the fridge”, so you say, “Somebody left his/her cheese in the fridge”, but then you need to refer to his/her cheese several times thereafter and your writing ends up looking like an explosion in a pedants’ factory? … I crave a non-risible gender-neutral (not “it”) third person singular pronoun in the way normal women of my age crave babies."  (The Guardian, July 24, 2010, p. 70) 

 
As Tom Utley complains in the Daily Mail: 

"It never ceases to infuriate me, for example, that in this cornucopia of a million words, there’s no simple, gender-neutral pronoun standing for ‘he-or-she’. That means we either have to word our way round the problem by using plurals – which don’t mean quite the same thing – or we’re reduced to the verbose and clunking construction: ‘If an MP steals taxpayers’ money, he or she should be ashamed of himself or herself.’ (‘Themselves’, employed to stand for a singular MP, would, of course, be a grammatical abomination)."     (London Daily Mail, June 13, 2009) 

The internal logic of English means that pronouns must agree with the nouns they stand for both in gender and in number. In other words, the singular "someone" should agree either a singular "his" or "her.” Despite this, the plural pronoun “their” is being used increasingly with singulars to avoid being gender specific, much to the distress of people who like good, clear grammar. This is why professional writers like Tom Utley and Lucy Mangan struggle with this issue and find using the plural "they" to refer to a singular "he" or "she" is not an acceptable alternative either. 

 
To overcome this, people have been trying to invent a new gender neutral singular pronoun that means “his or hers” since the 1850s! See here. Although it has failed to catch on, there is increasing pressure in universities to cater for “queer, non-binary and gender fluid” people in language. Since the campaign to avoid using language that excludes women has been so successful, there is now enough momentum to try to avoid using language that excludes every other minority group. For example the The University of Tennessee has told its staff and students to stop calling each other 'he', 'she', 'him' and 'her' - and to start referring to one another with terms like 'xe', 'zir' and 'xyr' instead. See here. This may seem crazy, but so did affirming being “queer, non-binary and gender fluid” forty years ago.

Gender Inclusive Language and the 2011 NIV

The 2011 NIV fully embraced the use of gender-inclusive language. Here are a few examples: 

‘What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honour and put everything under their feet. In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. (Hebrews 2:6-8)

Compared with the more literal 1984 NIV: 

““What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour and put everything under his feet.” In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.” (Hebrews 2:6–8)

The passage is controversial. Some people argue from the context that by quoting Psalm 8, the writer to the Hebrews was quoting Psalm 8 as an exposition of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, "And God said to them, [Adam, Eve and their descendants] “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”" The writer to the Hebrews then contrasts the failure of Adam and Eve with the success of Jesus in the following verses. Others argue that the 'man' of Psalm 8 is Jesus Himself. The 1984 NIV allows for both interpretations, reflecting the ambiguity of the Greek text. The 2011 NIV settles the matter on our behalf and tells us which option is they think is correct. 

  

The 2011 NIV is obviously concerned about verses which have "he" or "him" or "his" in them as it could imply that only men are being addressed and not women. As a result they often translate "he" as "they", etc.

For example: 

2011 NIV John 14:23:

"Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

The 1984 version more accurately translates the Greek of John 14:23:

“Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. "

Of course, the obvious objection to this verse in the 1984 NIV in our contemporary culture is to ask, "Well, does that mean that Jesus won't make His home in the lives of women?" However, at least the 1984 NIV makes the promise personal and individual. The 2011 version confirms that Jesus will dwell among his people, but the 1984 version confirms to us that Jesus was promising to dwell within our individual hearts. The Greek simply assumes that a female Greek-reading believer will apply this promise to herself as well. 

The 2011 NIV gives a new slant on the familiar verse of Revelation 3:20:

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

The 1984 NIV sticks with the more familiar promise, and the literal Greek:

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

Again, the obvious objection to this passage in our contemporary culture is to ask, "Well, does that mean that Jesus is not willing to knock on the door of a woman's life?" But again the imagery of the 2011 version is very different, with a crowd of people standing behind the door, rather than an individual. 

Another example of the 2011, John 13:10:

Jesus answered, ‘Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.’

And 1984, John 13:10:

“A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”

The 2011 places the emphasis on being a corporate member of a clean people with a warning to an unclean individual. The 1984 places the emphasis on the individual to examine his or herself to make sure that he or she is not the individual referred to at the end of the verse.
2011, John 14:23

"Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

1984, John 14:23

"Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

So, is it more important to be a member of a body of people who collectively want to love Jesus and obey His commandments, or is this both an obligation and a promise for every single individual believer? Does the 2011 NIV confirm that God loves you as an individual or that He loves His people as a whole and in general? 

 
Obviously, in some languages, it is impossible to avoid ambiguities like this. But English is not one of those languages. The English language has enough similarities with Greek to remove misunderstandings like this and can express the clarity of the Greek on these issues. 

 

"son of man"?

Jesus is well know in the gospels for referring to Himself as the ‘Son of Man.’ There are several reasons for this. One is that the Jewish people were expecting their Messiah to be a revolutionary warrior king who would wage war on the Romans, so Jesus would use the term ‘Son of Man’ to make it more ambiguous about whether or not He was referring to Himself or someone else yet to come. Another reason was to point them to the Son of Man that Daniel wrote of:

““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13–14) See Matt. 13:41, 16:27-28, 19:28, 24:27, 25:31, 26:64.

A third reason was to point people back to the Old Testament, where it is used to emphasise how weak and vulnerable mere human beings are. See Matt. 8:20, 17:22, 26:2, 24. This is obvious in the OT of the 1984NIV, the ESV, HSCB, etc., but would be completely lost on anyone who was only familiar with the 2011NIV.

1984 NIV Job 25:6 “how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!”
2011 NIV Job 25:6 “how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot – a human being, who is only a worm!”

1984 NIV Ps. 8:4 “what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?”
2011 NIV Ps. 8:4 “what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?”

1984 NIV Ps. 144: “O LORD, what is man that you regard him, or the son of man that you think of him?”
2011 NIV Ps. 144: “Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?

1984 NIV Is. 51:12 “I, I am he who comforts you; who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass,”
2011 NIV Is. 51:12 “‘I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you that you fear mere mortals, human beings who are but grass,”

"Brothers" or "Brothers and Sisters" or "Brethren" or even "Siblings"?

Another example of "sexist" language that often comes up in the Bible is the use of generic use of "brothers" to refer to both brothers and sisters. This is very common in the Epistles.
Here is a list of just one verse (out of many more) from nearly every letter in the New Testament that uses the term "brothers" and assumes that "sisters" are included as well:

Rom. 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
1Cor. 1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called....
2Cor. 8:1 And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches.
Gal. 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Eph. 6:23 Peace to the brothers, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil. 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord!...
Col. 1:2 To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.
1Th. 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,
2Th. 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
1Tim. 4:6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus,
2Tim. 4:21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.
Heb. 13:1 Keep on loving each other as brothers.
James 1:16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers.
1Pet. 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
2Pet. 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.
1John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
3John 5 Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers, even though they are strangers to you.

The Greek language has a dual form for some words. So it was possible for each of the apostles to have chosen to write " adelphoin" which we would accurately translate as "sibling", but they never once used this word. They also had the option of writing " adelphos kai adelphē" i.e., "bother and sister". Paul and James did this once each and did Jesus did it several times:

Matt. 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matt. 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Mark 10:29 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
1Cor. 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
James 2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.

"Adelphos" = Brother or Brother and Sister?

The question now must be, should the Greek term " adelphos" (brother) be translated as "brother and sister" in English? The New King James Version gets round the problem by using the antiquated term "brethren." In today's language "brethren" is almost exclusively used as a religious term rather than to describe family relationships and so to some people it is a gender neutral term. Another option some translations have chosen is to ignore the obvious translation and paraphrase it as "believer" or "friend". However, this gives us access to the translator's opinion more than what the inspired apostle actually wrote.

1 Corinthians 8:11-13 repeats the Greek word "adelphos" four times, as the ESV makes clear:

The ESV 1 Cor. 8:11-13

And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. 

The 2011 NIV 1 Cor. 8:11-13

So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

The ESV uses the gender neutral "this weak person" to translate "ho astheneo" or literally "this weak ____" ('person' is implied in the Greek, not written). Notice how Paul repeated the word "brother" four times in these three verses. It is as if Paul wanted to emphasise the intimate personal relationship; "the brother! your brother! my brother! my brother! This is a member of your own family you're doing this to!" 

 
The NIV paraphrases the sentence and introduces the term "sister" to make the language more inclusive. However, to avoid the clumsy repetition of "the brother or sister! your brother or sister! my brother or sister! my brother or sister!" it only repeats this phrase twice and Paul's emotional appeal is somewhat blunted. Finally, by translating the final "adelphos" as "them", the 2011 NIV pictures a group of people being offended, when Paul is making it clear that we should even try to avoid offending individuals.

What the Scholars Say

Just so that you have access to the same authorities that Bible translators use themselves, Here is what they say about the Greek word "anthropos", (think anthropology, the study of humanity) and "adelphos" (think, Phil adelphia, the city of "brotherly love").

Lowe and Nida is a Greek to English dictionary (lexicon) used by people translating the Bible into other languages and often has notes about how to deal with the difficulties of translation into non-European languages. 

Lowe and Nida  

8.3 anthropos. masculine noun: (an idiom, literally ‘the outside person’) the physical nature or aspect of a person — ‘body, physical form.’ ‘but if indeed our bodies perish’ 2Cor 4:16. The phrase ho anthropos is to be understood in direct contrast with the spirit or soul in the same verse, which refers to the psychological or spiritual nature of human personality (see 26.1). 

9.1 anthropos. a human being (normally an adult) — (in the singular) ‘person, human being, individual,’ (in the plural) ‘people, persons, mankind.’
It is not uncommon in languages for a term which is often used to refer to an adult male to be employed also in a generic sense of ‘person.’ This is especially true when such terms are used in the plural form. In a number of instances, generic meanings of receptor languages have not been recognized as such, since translators have assumed that such receptor-language terms refer only to members of a particular tribe or group (because they have been found only in specific contexts), while in reality such terms often designate people in general. One must, however, be on the alert for seemingly generic terms which refer only to the so-called ‘in-group,’ that is to say, members of a particular tribe, society, or community. 

10.49 adelphos masculine noun: : a male having the same father and mother as the reference person — ‘brother.’ 

11.23 adelphos v m: a close associate of a group of persons having a well-defined membership (in the NT adelphos refers specifically to fellow believers in Christ) — ‘fellow believer, (Christian) brother.’ ‘my fellow believers, be joyful in your union with the Lord’ Php 3:1. The masculine form adelphos may include both men and women, but see also 11.24. Though in a number of languages it is possible to use a corresponding term meaning ‘brother’ or ‘brothers’ in the sense of fellow believers, in some languages this cannot be done, and one must employ other types of expressions. In some instances it is possible to generalize a term meaning ‘relative’ and therefore to address or to speak of fellow Christians as ‘relatives’ rather than specifically ‘brothers and sisters.’ In most instances, however, one may only employ a phrase such as ‘those who also believe’ or ‘those who believe in Christ even as we do.’ 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

444. anthroœpos, anthroœpou, ho (perhaps from aneœr and oœps, i.e. man’s face); man. It is used
1. universally, with reference to the genus or nature, without distinction of sex, a human being, whether male or female.
2. indefinitely, without the article [“the”], anthroœpos, a. someone, a (certain) man, when who he is either is not known or is not important.
3. in the plural hoi anthroœpoi is sometimes (the) people.
5. ho anthroœpos, with the article, the particular man under consideration, who he is being plain from the context. 

80. adelfos, adelfou, ho;
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother):
4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family: Matt. 23:8; John 21:23; etc.; in courteous address, Rom. 1:13; 7:1; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 John 2:7. It has reference to the new life unto which men are begotten again by the efficiency of a common father, even God: 1 John 2:9ff; 3:10, 14; etc. 

“Brotherly”?

One of the great themes of the New Testament is that God is our Father and we are His family. In other words, we are brothers and sisters to one another because we all share the same Father. As a result, many of the New Testament writers use terms encouraging us to have “brotherly love” for one another, rather than just the sort of love that exists among the friends. By avoiding this sort of gender specific language, the 2011 NIV has to avoid this type of ‘family’ language.

1984NIV Rom. 12:10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honour one another above yourselves.
2011NIV Rom. 12:10 “Be devoted to one another in love. Honour one another above yourselves.”

1984NIV 1Th. 4:9 “Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.”
2011NIV 1Th. 4:9 “Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.” 

1984NIV 2Pet. 1:7 “ and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.”
1984NIV 2Pet. 1:7 “and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.”

Conclusion

As 1 Corinthians 8:11-13 teaches above, we definitely need to be sensitive to the consciences of individuals, in the way we use language just as much as in the food we eat. We also need to recognise that by trying not to offend one fellow Christian, we can sometimes end up upsetting two or three others. The only thing that can hold us all together is for us all to develop a common desire to be faithful to what God is teaching us. We obviously cannot compromise what the Bible teaches about theft just because it may hurt the feelings of someone in prison for robbery! 

 
Since there are concerns about how the 2011 NIV distorts the meaning of these passages by imposing gender-inclusive language onto the text, yet gender-inclusive language is an un-ignorable reality in our culture now, we need to see if the ESV is a realistic alternative. To determine this we need to have to look at how the ESV’s translators handle this issue, which we will do in the next post.

1. Choosing a new Bible Translations for Parkside

Introduction

The elders and I have noticed that about half of the 1984 NIV pew Bibles in church are looking dog-eared and worn. They may last another couple of years, but sooner or later they will need to be replaced and replacing them with other 1984 NIVs is no longer an option as they are no longer printed. The most obvious choice would be to simply replace the 1984 NIVs with the new NIV that was revised in 2011. However the changes in the 2011 are so significant that it almost qualifies as a new translation, and it was met with a lot of controversy by people who loved and trusted the old 1984 NIVs. A common and viable alternative used by many Evangelical churches like Parkside is the English Standard Version (ESV), which is a little more literal than the NIV, but is still more readable than other ‘word-for-word’ translations. Another possibility is the Holman Standard Christian Bible (HSCB).

I am recommending to the elders and the church that we adopt the ESV or the HSCB and not the 2011 NIV for the reasons I’ve outline below, but the decision has not been made yet. The HSCB is another good translation which we are considering too. The whole point of bringing it to the church at the meeting in June is to give people a chance to look at the issues for themselves and to get familiar with the ESV to see if it would work for the church. Although the matter has not been settled yet, it will have to be eventually. We will be open to discussion and suggestions. Of course, no matter what translation we eventually choose, nothing will ever prevent people buying a translation of their own preference and using it in church.

 

Why are there so many Bible translations in English to choose from?

The Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek (as well as a few bits of Aramaic). Scholars since William Tyndale in the early 1500s have been translating the Bible directly into English from the original languages. The King James version of 1611 remained virtually the only Bible translation until the early 20th Century, but the English language had changed so much that more and more people were finding it difficult to understand its archaic language. The earliest translators, from Tyndale to the KJV committee, tried to do an essentially word for word translation. In other words, they tried to find a single English word for every Hebrew or Greek word, and when they came across a phrase that was difficult to understand or a word that was ambiguous in original, they tried to leave that ambiguity in the English.

The Chart above reminds us that in the last 50 years there have been numerous translations.

Paraphrases

Some, like the Good New Bible, or the New Century Version, or the New Living Translation, on the right hand of the chart are called "paraphrases." These versions are focused much more on making the Bible immediately understandable than they are on being accurate. The translators will normally read the whole verse in Greek or Hebrew, then ask, "how would I write this if I was trying to say the same sort of thing in modern English?" As a result, they do an excellent job of making most of the Bible much easier to understand, but the problem is that a thoughtful reader must always ask the question, "Is this what God actually inspired the writer to say, or is it what the translator thinks God was trying to say?" The most extreme example of this is Eugene Peterson's The Message, which is more of a Bible commentary on what Eugene Peterson thinks the Bible says, rather than what the Bible actually says. That uncertainty for some people can be like the serpent's whisper in the garden of Eden, “Did God really say..." (Gen 3:1).

Formal Equivalence

That's the fancy term for word-for-word translations like the KJV. The 1982 New King James version sought to be a new translation strongly based on the KJV and deeply influenced by its style. For example, although they avoided archaic terms like "thee, thou and leadeth" it retained the word "brethren" from the KJV instead of "brothers." It also translates from the "Received Text" which represents the vast majority of hand-written Greek texts but ignores a small number of older texts which differ.

The Revised Standard Version from the mid-20th Century was a good translation but strongly criticised by Evangelicals who were concerned by the influence of liberalism in some of its translation choices. For example, Isaiah 7:14 was translated as "the young woman shall conceive and bear a son." The Hebrew word "alma" could be translated this way, (depending on context), but when Matthew translated this verse into Greek, he clarified the meaning as "virgin." However in the 1950s and '60 the virgin birth was being publically rejected by many prominent theologians and bishops. The RSV was subsequently revised in 1989 as the NRSV, but the influence of liberalism continued to taint an otherwise fairly readable and literal translation. It remains popular among liberal, ecumenical, and Anglo-Catholic churches, is used by some Catholics, but has been largely rejected by Evangelicals.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) set out to be the most literal translation into English. It is an excellent, scholarly translation but it never became popular as it stuck so closely to the original word order of the Greek and Hebrew that it became unnecessarily difficult to read.

Dynamic equivalence

In the middle of the chart came the NIV, first published in 1984. The goal of the NIV, was neither a word-for-word, nor paraphrase. They used what they called 'dynamic equivalence.' Where possible they used a word-for-word style of translation, but when the Greek or Hebrew became unclear or difficult, they would use two or three words. For example, where Paul talks about our battle with "the flesh" the NIV translated this with the phrase, "the sinful nature." The translators also didn't feel that it was necessary to follow the original word order or give a strong feel for the differing styles of poetry or prose of the original Greek or Hebrew. Instead, they rearranged the sentence into a more regular, smooth English style. It was broadly received as a good compromise and unsurprisingly became the most popular Bible among English-speaking Evangelicals throughout the world.

The new, revised, New International Version of 2011.

In 2011 Biblica (the new name for the International Bible Society who produced the 1984 NIV) launched a new version fo the NIV, and withdrew from the market the 1984 version.

The preface to the new version 2011 version of the NIV affirms that the translators still believe that the Bible is the perfectly trustworthy Word of God and states that their aim was: "to recreate as far as possible the experience of the original audience—blending transparency to the original text with accessibility for the millions of English speakers around the world." In other words, their commitments and goal remain the same as the original 1984 NIV, but it is not a minor revision with only the occasional phrase or word being changed.

The preface continues to say that these “updates are needed in order to reflect the latest developments in our understanding of the biblical world and its languages and to keep pace with changes in English usage.”

They also continue their translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence, saying, "The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."

These alterations pushed the 2011 NIV to the right of the centre in the chart above, as the gender-inclusive language required the translator to give less literal translations than the 1984 NIV did.

The Holman Standard Christian Bible

The HCSB (not to be confused with the bank, HSBC!) was translated to be an alternative to the 2011NIV. Increasingly large numbers of Christians were concerned by the trend the NIV’s publishers were taking towards using "gender-inclusive language", but most admired the fact that the NIV had an easier style than the ESV. The HCSB uses a similar translation philosophy to the NIV, but continues to translate ‘he’ as ‘he’ and not ‘they’, ‘son of man’ as ‘son of man’ and not ‘a human being’, etc. It also uses inclusive language where the original language permits it, but not as consistently as the ESV. It has a number of interesting features, such as sometimes using ‘Yahweh’ instead of LORD in the OT, or occasionally using ‘Messiah’ instead of ‘Christ’ in the NT, and often accurately translating the more familiar term “servant” (e.g., “servant of the Lord”) as “slave” (e.g., “slave of the Lord.”).  Its two main disadvantages are that it is not well known in the UK and it there is only an American spelling version available, as used here.

The English Standard Version

The ESV is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version by Evangelical scholars who admired the strengths of the RSV, but were reluctant to recommend it because of its liberal bias. It is an "essentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer, but avoid the clumsy language of the even more literal NASB. As such, its emphasis is on "word-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original. It is readily available with in a British spellings version.

The ESV is not on the chart above, but if it was it would be to the left of the NIV, probably around where the RSV is. The HSCB would be half way between the ESV and the NIV. 

God and Suffering 1. The Origins of Suffering.

Over the next two or three months we are going to be looking at one of the most basic struggles people face in their Christian lives, as well as one of the commonest objections to the Christian God: If God is good, loving and all powerful, why does he allow such suffering in the world. This month we will look at how human suffering came into the world, then we will go on to look at what the Bible tell us about what God and suffering, as well as what He has provided to equip us to live in this world of sorrows. 

The Origins of Suffering

The Bible tells us that when God created Adam and Eve He placed them in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word for "garden" is “gan”,  "a plot of ground protected by a wall or a hedge.” God placed them in this paradise to protect them from all harm but He also placed both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the garden. He did not create them as robots programmed to “love” Him and obey Him. He gave them a genuine option of living independently of Him, of rejecting His love and of not trusting Him. Now you may wonder why God didn’t put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on top of a cliff, or somewhere even more inaccessible, if its fruit was so dangerous. However it was not the fruit itself that was dangerous, it was what it symbolised: the knowledge of good and evil. Obviously, God had already given Adam and Eve  a knowledge of good and evil, because they knew that it would be good not to eat from that tree, and it would be evil to eat of it. The only “problem” about this was that this definition of good and evil was God’s definition. Even before the fall, Adam and Eve had to walk by faith and not by sight, trusting in their heavenly Father’s definition of good and evil and not trying to define it for themselves. 

Think for a moment about the goodness and generosity of God. Adam and Eve were created with a natural inclination and desire only to do good, (unlike us) and had the willpower to never sin too (unlike us). Obeying God wasn’t a hardship, a drudge or an irksome duty. It was what they were created to do and it would be a joy to do it. And think of the liberty they had. They only had a couple of commands that they had to obey: ““Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”” (Genesis 1:28) and “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16–17).  Notice how God generously emphasised the freedom He was giving them, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden.” before giving one simple restriction. That meant that they had the right to eat of the tree of life any time they wanted to!

When Satan appeared in the form of a serpent to tempt them, he told them a lie and a half-truth: ““You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”” (Genesis 3:4–5). The lie was that they would not die and yet they did. However, the half truth that Satan exploited should have been obvious to Adam and Eve: If it is God who defined good and evil, then anyone who can define good and evil for themselves and others must also be a god. That meant that they would have to reject God’s definition of good and evil and make up their own definition for themselves. Of course, a half-truth is always a whole lie. The reality is that only our infinitely wise, all knowing God is competent to define good and evil. When we set ourselves up as a false god, we bring all the disappointments and suffering that false gods always bring to those that rely on them. 

Adam was what theologians call a “covenant head”, just as Moses, David, the Hebrew kings were, and Jesus was too. In other words, they were not private individuals. They were representatives of groups of people. This is how the world continues to work. When Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in 1939, he was representing the entire nation, not just the Conservatives who voted for him. He was representing everyone in Britain, including all the Labour and Liberal voters, all the pacifists, even all the fascists like Oswald Mosley, whether they liked it or not. Neville Chamberlain was an imperfect man, who was the imperfect choice of imperfect people. However, Adam was a perfect man, chosen by a perfect God to represent the whole of humanity. When he “went to war” with God, he brought everyone he was representing (i.e., the entire human race) into “warfare" with God. 

As Paul puts it like this, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men… the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men... through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,” (Romans 5:11–12, 18-19). Paul goes on to tell us about how this actually works out in the lives of individuals, “The mind of sinful man is death…  the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.” (Romans 8:6–8). That is the tragedy of the human condition. We cannot rescue ourselves. Paul goes on to tell us about the effects of the fall on the rest of creation: "For the creation was subjected to frustration… [it is in] bondage to decay… the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time… “ (Romans 8:20-22). In other words, there is something profoundly wrong with the world. Our experience exactly matches the way the Bible describes the world. 

It is because we live in a world where people are constantly trying to define what is good and evil independently of God that we live in a world full suffering from the emotional pain produced by adultery, betrayal, gossip and bitterness. No wonder Paul start Romans with the shocking words, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness… ” (Romans 1:18). God would have to be cruel, indifferent and unjust not to be angry about the anguish this sort of selfish behaviour causes. Yet, on top if this emotional pain, we also have to live in the midst of physical pain caused by disease, old age and disasters. We live in a world crying out for redemption, but thankfully our Redeemer has come. More about Him next month...