One of the hallmarks of evangelicalism is its emphasis on the Bible as the final authority regarding spiritual truths. Evangelicals hold the Bible in high regard, looking to it as God’s definitive revelation to humanity and the essential guide for Christian life. And while there is much to be commended about such an understanding, pushing this idea too far often results in distorted and dangerous theological positions. (more…)
I commented to someone yesterday that I was bored and annoyed by the whole Reza Aslan controversy, so I hadn’t bothered to write about it. So in light of that disinterest, let me go ahead and add my two cents to the fray: (more…)
Are you planting trees or just cutting them down?
Are you making coffee or just drinking it?
Are you the main character or part of the supporting cast?
Are you reading sentences but missing the story?
Are you talking about Jesus instead of showing who Jesus is?
Are you teaching the “truth” instead of living love?
Are you looking to the future and ignoring the present?
Are you waiting for heaven after death and missing heaven during life?
Are you trying to save people from going to hell when they die instead of trying to save them from the hell they’re experiencing now?
Are you praying for what you want instead acting how God wants?
I recently had a discussion with a friend about whether Muslims worship the same God as Christians. At first glance, one might be tempted to answer “no”: different religions, therefore different Gods. Christians don’t believe in Allah, Muslims don’t believe in Jesus, end of story. But such a snap judgement fails to do justice to theistic belief in general and to the specific beliefs of the major monotheistic faiths.
(more…)
In a recent article discussing the New Living Translation, Daniel Block argues in favor of dynamic equivalence translation (“thought for thought”) over formal equivalence translation (“word for word”). He claims that Jesus himself favored this translation philosophy, citing the differences between Luke 10.27 and Deuteronomy 6.5 as evidence. Block says: (more…)
I’m not a Red Letter Christian. By this I don’t mean I’m opposed to Tony Campolo’s and Jim Wallis’ Christians-for-social-justice movement. I mean it in a very literal sense: I don’t like red text in my Bible.
Red letter Bibles print the words of Jesus in red, presumably so that we can better focus on his very important teachings . It’s the theological equivalent of underlining important passages in a textbook so that you can go back and quickly study them before an exam. (more…)
Romans 1:4 in the NIV 2011 reads: “and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Does this mean that because of his resurrection God appointed Jesus as his Son? Prior to the resurrection Jesus was just some guy, but post-resurrection God decided Jesus was good enough so he let him into the family?
Maybe some other translations can offer some insight:
The NIV 1984 reads “and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”
The NRSV reads “and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Here Jesus is declared to be God’s Son. The KJV, NAS and ESV all say he was “declared” as well. So then was the resurrection God’s public announcement of Jesus’ sonship? The NLT goes so far as to say that Jesus “was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead.”
But here’s the problem: the Greek text doesn’t really say “declared,” it says he was “appointed.” Paul uses the word ὁρισθέντος, which is the participle of the verb ὁρίζω. And ὁρίζω, according to BDAG, means “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set.” Every occurrence of ὁρίζω in the New Testament carries the clear meaning of appoint, decide or determine:
Luk 22:22 For the Son of Man is to go just as it has been determined
Act 2:23 who was handed over by the predetermined plan
Act 10:42 he is the one appointed by God as judge
Act 11:29 So the disciples … decided to send relief
Act 17:26 determining their set times
Act 17:31 by a man whom he designated
Heb 4:7 So God again appoints a certain day
If one accepts that “appoint” is in fact the best translation of the text (so that the NIV 2011 is really a more accurate rendering than the NIV 1984), does that leave us at a theological dead-end?
But there is another option: “in power” is describing the Son of God, not the appointment, so that Paul is not saying that “the Son of God was powerfully appointed”” but rather that the “powerful Son of God was appointed” or, as in the NET: “who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power.” Jesus was the Son of God pre-resurrection, but it was because of the resurrection that God chose to appoint him as the Powerful Son of God. Anders Nygren summarizes this important point: “So the resurrection is the turning point in the existence of the Son of God. Before that he was the Son of God in weakness and lowliness. Through the resurrection he becomes the Son of God in power.”
This issue not only sheds light on the way theology can influence our English translations, it also makes a crucial point about the importance of the resurrection. Christianity is not primarily about the Jesus’ public ministry or his death on the cross. Ours is, above all else, a resurrection faith — if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty (1 Cor 15:14). It is only through the resurrection that God’s plan for humanity and Jesus’ role in that plan, as the appointed Son of God in Power, can be fully realized.