Thursday, December 23, 2021

First Impression of the NRSVue

In this article, I will mostly compare the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) with the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) which is the basis for the NRSVue.

I have been looking forward to the publication of the NRSVue. The earlier NRSV has been my primary translation for a lot of years. I love it. I expect the update to do nothing but get better. I think that is what has happened. In this article, I have collected a bunch of verses that are... interesting to me in the NRSV. They are the passages I have most anticipated comparing with the NRSVue.

Scholarship:

Things that were fixed

1 Kings 8:16

NRSV: Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.

NRSVue: Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, nor did I choose anyone to be a ruler over my people Israel. But I have chosen Jerusalem in order that my name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel. (italics mine)

The NRSVue greatly improves the translation of this verse by incorporating information gathered from research of the Dead Sea Scrolls and comparing the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 6:5-6. The NRSVue alerts the reader to the variant with a footnote that reads, "Cn Compare Q ms and 2 Chr 6:5-6: MT lacks nor did . . . be there". We would read that note to say, "This is a correction derived from a comparison of the Qumran texts and 2 Chronicles 6:5-6. The Masoretic Text lacks nor did . . . be there." I do believe the NRSVue to be the first mainstream translation (I hope) to correctly correct this verse. This verse is probably a shining star example of scholarly improvements that readers will encounter in their studies with this translation.

Isaiah 3:12

NRSV:
My people—children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths.

NRSVue:
My people—their oppressors extort them,
and creditors
rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you
and confuse the course of your paths. (bold text mine)

NRSVue provides a footnote at the word "creditors" indicating the translators favored with the Greek (Septuagint) over the Hebrew. There is no note explaining the change from "children" to "oppressors." However, the change is probably closer to the original. The literal reading of the first two lines of the verse, out of the Hebrew, is something like, "My people, his oppressors, he deals severely, and women rule over them." Either "oppressors" needs to be corrected to "children" or "women" needs to be corrected to "creditors." The verse either pairs children and women (NRSV, KJV, NKJV, NABre, CSB, NASB, NIV), indicating that Israel's rulers are the least qualified to rule; or it pairs oppressors and creditors (NET, REB, CEB, NETS, LXX, and now NRSVue), indicating that the rich oppress the poor. In my humble opinion, the Septuagint (LXX) is a pretty good witness for this verse.

Isaiah 9:3

NRSV:
You have multiplied the nation,
you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
as with joy at the harvest,
as people exult when dividing plunder.

NRSVue:
You have multiplied exultation;
you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
as with joy at the harvest,
as people exult when dividing plunder. (bold text mine)

This verse is famous among Bible text scholars. At the time of the preparation of the NRSV in the 1980s, the scholarly consensus favored "exultation" over "nation;" but there were a few scholars who did not want to make the change. They pressed hard against the change—so hard that some of the other scholars backed down and, rather than push back against their colleagues, conceded to keep the RSV rendering. It was one of those moments in scholarly circles that became noteworthy because strong personalities prevailed over actual scholarship.

Incidentally, the Revised English Bible gets this verse right.

You have increased their joy
and given them great gladness
1 Corinthians 11:10

NRSV: For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of angels. (bold text mine)

NRSVue: For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of angels.

Almost all standard translations screw up this verse by adding "a symbol of" to the text. It does not exist in the Greek. Most translations assume headship in this chapter to mean authority and that Paul means a husband's authority over his wife. However, headship does not mean authority. Paul means to say that a woman has the power to make her own choice to do what she wants with her own head. There is no need to add (coff coff) clarifying... verbiage to the text.

1 Peter 3:5

NRSV: It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. (bold text mine)

NRSVue: It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by being subject to their husbands. (bold text mine)

"Authority" does not belong in this verse. The Greek, in a non-military context, should be understood as cooperative submission. Translations that insert language that puts husbands in authority over their wives do violence to the meaning of this verse. The Bible does not sanction a husband's authority over his wife (excepting 1 Corinthians 7:4 where the authority goes both ways).

Jude 5

NRSV: Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (bold text mine)

NRSVue: Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, once and for all, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (bold text mine)

NRSVue changes "the Lord" to "Jesus." It provides a textual note that "Other ancient authorities read informed, that the Lord who once for all saved." This is one of those texts in which there is a lot of variation amongst the ancient witnesses. The ancient witness for "Jesus" in this verse is strong; but some variants also give "Lord" (kurios) and "God" (theos). One interesting witness says "God Christ" in that place. Even if the witnesses were evenly divided, scholars should favor "Jesus" here on the basis that it is the more difficult reading. It is most likely original to the hand of Jude. Christian scribes were more likely to make slight modifications in their copies in order to make the text clearer—than to make slight changes that make the text more difficult. It is more difficult to accept that Jesus was personally involved in the Exodus than that God was the divine power behind the Exodus. Because of the way Christian scribes made their copies, translations should generally favor the more difficult readings as more original. The English Standard Version (ESV) also made this correction of the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

I am intrigued by the relocation of "once and for all." NRSVue does not provide a footnote regarding this change. RSV does not include the phrase at all and ESV kept the RSV reading there. The witness for either location is somewhat complicated; but wherever it goes, the meaning of the verse changes. The phrase's location in NRSV does not have a lot of force but it may be conscripted to support the Calvinist doctrine of Once-Saved-Always-Saved (Preservation of the saints). Its location in the NRSVue points to the nature of the readers' knowledge. The readers already have solid knowledge that Israel was divinely saved from Egypt.


Things that should have been fixed but were not

Exodus 4:23

NRSV=NRSVue: I said to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your firstborn son."

This statement is obviously conditional. The older RSV reading is preferable:

and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your firstborn son."

Leviticus 10:9 (for example)

NRSV=NRSVue: "Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations. ..."

The rendering of "sekar" as "strong drink" in the NRSV is also famous among textual scholars. The translating committee of the NRSV strongly agreed to translate "sekar" as "beer" in every occurrence of the word; however, the editorial committe (consisting of three persons for the Old Testament: Bruce Metzger, Robert Dentan and Walter Harrelson) changed all those beers back to "strong drink" against the wishes of the whole translating committee. I am a bit bewildered that the NRSVue scholars did not go with "beer" in the update.

Numbers 21:14

NRSV=NRSVue: Wherefore it is said in the Book....

NRSV got rid of all the "wherefores" from the RSV; but this one escaped the scholars' notice. It is just an oversight on the part of the NRSV scholars. The NRSVue scholars kept the oversight.

1 Kings 4:24 "West of the Euphrates" is a bad translation. It should read "beyond the Euphrates." Correctly translating that phrase betrays the location of the writer of 1&2 Kings: Babylon. There is no alternate reading notice about "west" in a footnote. The NRSVue team obviously looked at this verse because they made another change.

NRSV: For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides. (bold text mine)

NRSVue: For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates, and he had peace on all sides.

There is a footnote in the NRSVue indicating that the shorter reading comes from the Greek while the Hebrew provides the longer reading. When I compare the two readings, the longer reading looks at first like a haplography where text could be easily dropped between the two instances of "west of the Euphrates." I am really interested to learn why the translators chose to exchange the longer NRSV reading with the shorter version.

John 9:3-4

NRSV=NRSVue: Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work."

The NRSV is terrible here! and the NRSVue kept the terrible reading of these verses. Knowing that Greek has no punctuation yet English does, translators should take care how they supply punctuation. The two verses should read something like

Jesus answered, "Neither this man sinned nor his parents; but so that the works of God might be displayed in him, we must work the works of him who sent me(/us)—as long as it is day. Night is coming when no one can work."

Not very many translations get John 9:3-4 right.

Galatians 3:16, 19, 29

Galatians 3:16 (NRSV=NRSVue) Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings," as of many;[/,] but it says, "and to your offspring," that is, to one person, who is Christ.

NRSV and NRSVue should translate all occurrences of "spora" in this chapter as "seed." As in English, "seed" can mean a single seed or a large quantity of seeds. The word "seeds" generally refers to a small, countable number of seeds. Paul's argument is based upon the Septuagint translation of Genesis 22:18. Either way, Paul is playing with words in Galatians 3. He knows that "seed" can be either singular or plural. In fact, he uses the word as a plural in verse 29. So, he is stretching Genesis 22:18 to apply to Jesus since there is no Old Testament passage that directly addresses the identity of Jesus. Whether or not Paul's argument is convincing is not the point. Editorializing "seed" to "offspring" confuses Paul's point. Translations should just say "seed" and leave the interpretation to the reader. The problem is, NRSV already translated all the seeds in the Old Testament as "descendants" and "offspring." When they did that, they kind of backed themselves into a corner in Galatians 3. To their credit, the NRSVue team did not take the bait and editorialize Psalm 89:4, 29, 36 as did the ESV team.

1 Timothy 3:2

NRSV=NRSVue: Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,... (bold text mine)

"Married only once" is overly interpretive. The problem with it is that the (literal) "husband of one wife" has to do with faithfulness to his wife rather than whether or not the candidate has been scripturally remarried. The case for faithfulness over "never remarried" is made by looking at 1 Timothy 5:9.

Let the widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,... (ESV)

Whatever the widows list was, each candidate for the list had to be the "wife of one husband." Noting that Paul wanted to deny enrollment to younger widows, encouraging them to get married (1 Timothy 5:14), it would seem unfair if these twice-married women became widows again in their sixties and were denied enrollment in the widows list because they had been remarried when they were younger widows. Obviously, "wife of one husband" refers to how faithful the widow was when her husband was alive. That's what "husband of one wife" means in 1 Timothy 3:2.

NRSV and NRSVue probably favored the "married only once" language to show that they believe the qualification is gender inclusive. It also means "wife of one husband." "Husband of one wife" gender inclusive. If Paul meant to say "husband or wife of one wife or husband, respectively," he would just use the masculine language by directing the qualification to husbands. I offer just two (of many) examples of where similar masculine language is really gender inclusive: Luke 14:26; Exodus 20:17.

I would favor "being a faithful spouse" at 1 Timothy 3:2.

1 Peter 1:20

NRSV=NRSVue: He was destined before the foundation of the world but was revealed at the end of the ages for your sake.

All of the appearances of "foundation of the world" in the New Testament are mistranslated in almost all standard translations. Foundation (katabolee) is a really difficult word to translate; so English translations from the Geneva and KJV forward followed the Latin word meaning "foundation." The word literally means to throw something down. Somewhere along the line, someone (Jerome?) decided the word means to lay a foundation. But it also means to fall. The meaning "foundation" seems to denote the point of the first day of Creation. The meaning "fall" would indicate a point in time when there was a falling—as in the generation before the worldwide flood that had a great moral fall. Instead of "foundation of the world," a better reading is "disintegration of human society."

Furthermore, in NRSV (=NRSVue), the word "destined" is pretty bad. The Greek word here is usually translated "foreknown." I'll set aside the rationale for translating the word as "destined" in NRSV. Since "foreknown," means "known" in some contexts (Acts 26:5 and the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 6:13) and "knew" means "loved" in others (e.g., Matthew 7:22-23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; 2 Timothy 2:19), "foreknew" could be understood as "known" or "foreloved." A good translation would say,

He was known before the.... (c.f., ESV, NASB, NET Bible, GW, WEB, Young's Literal)

Gender Inclusiveness:

There is a handful of passages that suffer in meaning from the gender inclusiveness of the NRSV and NRSVue. In particular, when the biblical passage is intended to overtly target individuals, gender inclusiveness moves to a plural pronoun in order to keep the gender neutral. Sometimes, the pronoun "they" substitutes for "he." Today, we are almost accustomed to hear "they" as a singular pronoun referring to both a "he" and a "she." It still gives me Forest Whitaker eye. Some passages that I think suffer from the gender inclusiveness (but NRSV and NRSVue can't help it) include

Psalm 1:1

John 4:14

John 14:21, 23

Psalm 68:11 This one is quite interesting in both translations:

RSV=NRSV=NRSVue:
The Lord gives the command;
great is the company of those who bore the tidings.

This "company" is actually a "company of women." What is wrong with "women" announcing this news? Is it because whatever they were doing in their announcing is too stereotypically women's work? Whatever.

 

Hebrews 2:6-8 special case

NRSV: But someone has testified somewhere,
“What are human beings that you are mindful of them,
or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned them with glory and honor,
subjecting all things under their feet.”
Now in subjecting all things to them, God left nothing outside their control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them,...

This one is actually pretty good in both NRSV and NRSVue. (NRSVue says "humans" rather than "human beings"). Most translations apply the quote from Psalm 8 to Jesus. NRSV and NRSVue apply it to human beings. Nevertheless, the word "control" in verse 8 is problematic. "Control" used to mean "authority" which is the correct meaning; but with the rise of New Calvinism, "control" means "irresistible control." The theological meaning of "control" has changed and therefore the modern meaning of the word in Hebrews 2:8 is now incorrect. The revisers of the NRSVue should have altered the language to mean "resistible authority."

 

Some either/or passages:

Isaiah 53:10

NRSV=NRSVue:
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him with pain.
When you make his life an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring and shall prolong his days;
through him the will of the LORD shall prosper. (bold text mine)

"Crush" is probably not the best translation. Everybody translates it that way; but "purify" would be better than "crush."

Romans 1:4

NRSV=NRSVue: 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....

Not capitalizing "spirit" here looks like a mistake; but it can go either way. It changes the meaning; but either meaning is acceptable.

Ephesians 5:32

NRSV=NRSVue: This is a great mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.

The meaning of this verse is kind of in the gray area. Applying marriage to Christ and the church may not be the point. Paul may be applying Christ and the church to marriage. It is possible that Paul is using the unity of Christ and the church to describe the unity of husband and wife, not the other way around. The difficulty for translators is to not take sides in this gray zone. Tough call.

James 3:15

NRSV=NRSVue: Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish.

"Devilish" is not a good translation. Demonic is better; but the meaning may be the same either way. James said "daimoniodes" (demonic, influenced by an evil spirit) and not "diabolos" (devilish, slanderous). Is this verse about supernatural influence or a human character flaw? "Devilish" is easily a reference to a character flaw. "Demonic" denotes influence from a supernatural being. Demons inflict harm but they do not tempt. So, "demonic" may still refer to a character flaw but it is unusual to say it that way. To say that someone's actions are demonic may mean that those actions inflict harm upon someone else. Either/or.


Final Thoughts:

Sometimes NRSVue softens language that I think was better in the NRSV. For example,

Hosea 1:2

NRSV: When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits whoredom by forsaking the LORD."

NRSVue: When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go take for yourself a wife of prostitution and have children of prostitution, for the land commits great prostitution by forsaking the LORD."

I am conflicted over whether or not NRSVue is an improvement in this example. 

I'll add that the NRSVue comes with a pretty good set of crossreferences. It may be the same set the NRSV has. The older version was rarely published with crossreferences. Or with red letters.

I am excited about the NRSVue. Before its release, NRSV was the greatest English translation ever! Further study in the NRSVue may endear me to it... or not. That sentament will take a lot of time.

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Genesis 38: What is righteous?

What is righteous?

Genesis 38 takes a temporary break from the Joseph story to document a bit of family intrigue in Judah's little circle.

 In the account, Judah gives a Canaanite woman named Tamar to his oldest son Er. God finds something objectionable about Er and acts in some way that results in Er's death. Judah gives Tamar to his next oldest son Onan who, by family custom, should sire a son to inherit Er's birthright (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 4). Onan thought about it and decided that he would have Er's inheritance if he failed to sire a son through Tamar; so he used Tamar for sex but he practiced coitus interruptus so that his seed would not go into Tamar. This behavior also displeased God and the result was Onan's death as well.

(Incidentally, there is no basis here to suggest that every death is God's will. Nevertheless, God evidentially reserves the right to sometimes work toward the death of certain persons).

Judah told Tamar that he would give her to his next younger son when he is old enough to take a wife. He then, conveniently, forgot about it. Tamar, on the other hand, was forced into permanent widowhood without any freedom to remarry or to inherit.

Tamar took matters into her own hands. She disguised herself and had sexual intercourse with Judah. She got pregnant. When Judah found out the whole story, he called Tamar "righteous" (Genesis 38:26).

The end result of Tamar's actions is that Judah's lineage was preserved. He became the ancestor of David and Jesus through Tamar. In typical patriarchal fashion, the younger of Tamar's twins is the father of this lineage.

The big question that comes up here and in other places is, What, exactly, is "righteous?" Is morality a long list of DOs and DON'Ts? Is everything that is stated as a rule in scripture the end-all of right behavior? We need look at Jesus' repeated violations of the Sabbath to see that we can focus too closely on the rule at the expense of treating people right.

Is there gray area between right and wrong? If morality is that fluid, how willy-nilly can we be about switching them around? I am reminded of Romans 3:7-8.

But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved! (NRSV)

 Addendum, for clarity. A paraphrase.:

If by my unrighteousness I glorify God then my unrighteousness is God's will; so I should have a reward rather than a condemnation. We don't do that. Those who say we do are condemned and deserve it.

/Addendum

Consider the dishonest actions of the Hebrew midwives (Exodus 1:19-21), Rahab (Joshua 2:4-5), David's spies (2Samuel 16:16-19; 17:7-13, 20) and Michal (1 Samuel 19:14; 20:28-29; 19:17). There are good Christians who operate as spies and undercover agents. How do they do it without feeling like they are sinning in their dishonesty? It probably boils down to the fact that being right is less important than love and the good welfare of people.

Fretheim ("Genesis," NIBC) has this to say: [Tamar's] action cannot be universalized so as to be declared righteous wherever it is committed; at the same time, such action may be righteous in another time and place if it becomes the way of doing justice to a relationship. It may be necessary to go beyond the law in order to fulfill the law, which should enable life and well-being to a community (see Deut 6:24; Jesus’ sabbath-breaking, Mark 2:27). Here the OT narrative gives especially high value to the future of the community, in view of which individual acts, which might be normally condemned, are viewed positively. Relationships are more important than rules; faithfulness may mean going beyond the law. We cannot help wondering whether this story has informed Jesus’ saying that “the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matt 21:31 NRSV) as well as his open response to the woman who was a “sinner” (Luke 7:36-50). We should not “secularize” this note about righteousness; in v. 10, God is explicitly involved in judgment regarding this matter. Hence, Tamar has been truer to her relationship with God than Judah has.

Saturday, October 9, 2021

What's Up With OliveTree?

I am irritated, and a bit troubled, by OliveTree Bible study software (https://www.olivetree.com/).

Once upon a time, they were really prompt about making study resources available for purchase within the OliveTree app. Sometimes, the release of the print version coincided with the e-version and a nearly simultaneous OliveTree-formatted version. Today, they are really slow about new releases of actual study materials. Oh, there are plenty of Christian Living type (trade paperback) books coming up in OliveTree; but commentaries and the like are few and far between.

Are they going to just retire on their current academic offerings? Some examples:

* The soon-to-be-released 1&2 Thessalonians commentary in the Paideia commentary set has been in the "Upcoming Releases" OliveTree page, along with the complete New Testament Paideia set. Today, both modules are no longer in the list.

* The Jewish Study Bible Notes 2nd Edition module has been on the list for a LONG time. E-versions in other formats (e.g., Kindle) have been available for some time. (In fairness, this may be an Oxford Publishing problem. Many of the high-end Oxford study resources have never been widely available in electronic format).

* The KJV Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek to English interlinear Bibles have been in the "Upcoming" for forever. What's the holdup?

* There is a new edition of the Jerome Commentay, The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, Third Fully Revised Edition (Catholic), ETA 2022. No whisper of its anticipated availability in OliveTree.

* The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition in being released in about six weeks. Isn't OliveTree in any kind of negotiation to offer the translation for the app?

I also think it strange that they are preparing the new Christian Standard Commentary volumes for release; but these commentaries are word-for-word duplicates of the New American Commentary set (same publisher) which is already available in OliveTree—for half the price! 

OliveTree used to offer a new sale every week, starting every Sunday afternoon. Now the "This Week's Sale" starts arbitrarily on some weekday and it drags on for 2½ to 3 weeks. The "This Weekend Only Sale" drags on or two weekends. This week's "Midnight Sale: A New Deal Every Night" makes no sense. There is not a new deal every night. The typical sale prices are not so wonderful as they used to be either.

I know the sales team has to ask publishers for permission to put their books on sale. Does anybody at OliveTree have that job anymore. Is the employee in charge of publisher relations too busy with divided responsibilities?

I was somewhat nervous about buying electronic reference books because, if OliveTree ever folds, I might loose my books! Most of the time, when a software company folds, some similar company buys them out and also absorbs their customer base. QuickBooks (Intuit), for example, once bought out another accounting software and they created a conversion tool to convert the books in the other software over to QuickBooks. All the customers form the other software recieved free copies of QuickBooks.

It doesn't always work that way. I was once a customer of a Bible software called QuickVerse. They folded. They were bought out by another Bible software called WordSearch. WordSearch never tried to accommodate QuickVerse customers like me and I lost all my QuickVerse purchases. WordSearch was recently absorbed into Logos Bible software. Logos did accommodate former WordSearch customers. They were able to keep their former purchases. If WordSearch had transitioned my QuickVerse stuff over, I would probably be a Logos customer today. If OliveTree gets absorbed into Logos, I will not be real happy since there are some really annoying features of Logos. (You have to pay for software updates; they want you to subscribe to stuff rather than buy it; it nearly requires an Internet connection to use). However, at least I will be able to keep my OliveTree purchases.

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Genesis 37: The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife

 Genesis 37 accounts for Joseph's journey to Egypt.

The subplot of this story is that Joseph's brothers became very angry with Joseph on account of his confrontational dreams they kept hearing about and their jealousy that their father Jacob had given Joseph a special robe. In their anger and jealousy, they mistreated Joseph who eventually wound up in the hands of merchants who took Joseph to Egypt and sold him there.

Matthew Henry noticed that Joseph's story parallel's Christ's since Jacob sent Joseph to check on the welfare (Shalom) of his brothers; but the brothers mistreated him.

Joseph was a type of Christ; for though he was the beloved Son of his Father, and hated by a wicked world, yet the Father sent him out of his bosom to visit us in great humility and love. He came from heaven to earth to seek and save us; yet then malicious plots were laid against him. His own not only received him not, but crucified him. This he submitted to, as a part of his design to redeem and save us.

 With respect to the sharp conflict between the sons of Jacob, Terence Fretheim saw an application to denominationalism.

Eventually no one will be excluded; all twelve carry the promises into the future (Genesis 50:24). These intrafamilial conflicts mirror exclusivistic efforts among the people of God in every age. This story finally witnesses to reconciliation among the brothers and the end of exclusion. No individual in this story emerges innocent. Even Joseph, though certainly the primary victim, furnishes fuel for his own troubles. Everyone in his own way contributes to the mess in which the family finds itself; at the same time, to level out the sins of the characters and to make everyone equally irresponsible is to fail to consider issues of communal consequence. ("Genesis," NIB, OliveTree e-resource)

I am fascinated by Genesis 37:35

All his sons and all his daughters sought to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father bewailed him.

These sons were the primary cause of their father's grief. What consolation did they offer?

I think of the Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #48:
"The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife."

I am also reminded of the Psalm where the psalmist was deathly sick and a false friend came and consoled him and wished for his recovery but privately hoped for his death.

Psalms 41:5-9
My enemies wonder in malice
when I will die, and my name perish.
And when they come to see me, they utter empty words,
while their hearts gather mischief;
when they go out, they tell it abroad.
All who hate me whisper together about me;
they imagine the worst for me.
They think that a deadly thing has fastened on me,
that I will not rise again from where I lie.
Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted,
who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me.

Monday, June 14, 2021

Genesis 36: Missional Election

Genesis 36:1
These are the descendants of Esau (that is, Edom).

Genesis 36 records the family tree of Esau. Most of these names we know only through their preservation by Israelite sources. Why would Israelite sources bother to detail the family of a non-chosen people?

The reason is because election is about vocation and mission (Genesis12:3; 28:14). The elect have a vocational duty of mission towards the non-elect.

We must never think of ourselves as better because we are elect. We are elect to be servants of one another and of all the families of the earth.

Wednesday, June 2, 2021

Head ≠ Authority

The general understanding of the concept of headship in the New Testament is that "head" is a metaphor for "source of origin" or "provider," whichever is indicated by context... except in the cases of two verses in which the metaphorical meaning is "authority."

I confidently reject the exception and will explain why in this article.

Here are some examples of the Greek metaphorical use of "head" in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head [origin] of every man (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3), and the husband [man] is the head [source] of his wife [woman] (Genesis 2:21-23), and God is the head [source] of Christ (Luke 1:35).

Eph 4:15-16
But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head [provider], into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head [provider] of the wife just as Christ is the head [provider] of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

The case is really easy to show that "head" in these verses relates to caretaking and/or origin. A common rebuttal from complementarians is to show that there are a few verses in the New Testament that use the word "head" to mean "authority." There is no need to concede this point; yet many egalitarians do. Here are the verses.

Colossians 2:10

and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.

For this verse to be talking about Jesus' authority over secular rulers, Paul should have used the word "authority" instead of "head." Certainly, Jesus has authority over rulers and authorities; but the Lord's authority is not the subject of this verse. One need only look back a few paragraphs in Colossians to know what this verse is talking about.

Col 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him [i.e., Christ is their source of origin]. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together [i.e., Christ is their sustainer].

Headship in Colossians 2:10 is about source of origin and sustenance. Not "authority."

Ephesians 1:22

And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,

"Under his feet" and "head over" mean two different things. "Under his feet" does denote authority. "Head over..." does not (in Greek culture).

To begin, it is important to avoid drawing too firm of conclusions from this verse. "Head over," for example, should be translated as "head for" (kephalē hyper) if the translators were consistent. "For the church" (ho ekklēsia) is not quite right either. A strictly literal translation would be "the the church" but that is kind of awkward. "Ho" means to indicate "ekklēsia" and if we want to translate "ho" into the English translation we should render something like "namely, the church." Thus, a completely accurate and proper translation of the verse would be,

And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head for all things, namely, the church.

The verse means, and I paraphrase, "God has placed Christ in authority over everything and God has made Christ the sustainer [= head] of all things, that is, the church" [the second use off all things denotes the church].

Now, could this verse mean that Christ's headship means Christ's authority? It could; but not even close to conclusively. Understanding Christ's headship as provider for the church is bolstered by context.

Christ is

  • the source of every spiritual blessing
    Ephesians 1:3
    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
  • our source for adoption
    Ephesians 1:5
    He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will,
  • our source of redemption
    Ephesians 1:7
    In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
  • our source of inheritance
    Ephesians 1:11, 14
    In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will....
    this [the Holy Spirit] is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.
  • giver of the Holy Spirit
    Ephesians 1:13-14
    In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.

Ephesians chapter 1 seems to be saying that Christ is the giver of all spiritual blessings for the spiritual health and success of the church.

Christ as source for the church is the strongest likelyhood of the meaning of "head" in Ephesians 1:22. To interpret "head" as authority in that verse is not supported by good biblical exegesis. To claim as much with an air of confidence is an artificial attempt to "teach from a position of authority." Many teachers in the churches of Christ think that uncertainty about this-or-that Bible verse is BAD TEACHING. I disagree. Teaching with confidence something that is not clear or conclusive in the Bible is BAD TEACHING.

Monday, May 24, 2021

Reasons for the Decline of Women in Public Ministry

Janette Hassey, "EVANGELICAL WOMEN IN MINISTRY A CENTURY AGO: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries," Discovering Biblical Equality. OliveTree e-resource.

(Excerpt)

What can account for the gradual decline of public ministry opportunities for evangelical women between the world wars? First, fundamentalist separatist subcultures emerged which tended to harden on the women’s issue. Second, as fundamentalism institutionalized, women were squeezed out of leadership roles. Third, the conservative Protestant backlash against changing social values resulted in restrictions on women in ministry. Finally, a more literalist view of Scripture among fundamentalists meant less flexibility in interpreting the subject of women in ministry.

Separatist fundamentalist subcultures. Between the world wars, fundamentalists lost the battle for control of mainline denominations and schools; in regrouping, they created a host of separate institutions. Whereas the nineteenth-century evangelical empire had stood near the center of American culture, the fundamentalism of the 1930s withdrew and formed distinct subcultures. Part of the movement veered in a militant, separatist, extremist direction, often allied with far right-wing politics. In that process of narrowing, opportunities for women also tightened.

Although united briefly in the initial attack on modernist theology, fundamentalism began to splinter in defeat. A growing disputatious, antiecumenical attitude among fundamentalists eliminated earlier cooperative interdenominational undertakings such as WCTU meetings. The Pentecostal practices of tongues and healing and even Methodist perfectionism increasingly antagonized fundamentalists. 

The feminist heritage was lost even among the holiness churches, except where it was institutionalized, as in the Salvation Army. By World War II most evangelicals could go a lifetime never having heard a woman preacher or pastor, and girls grew up with fewer and fewer role models of women in public ministry.

Significantly, fundamentalism widened geographically during the same decades in which it narrowed denominationally. Whereas early fundamentalist strength had lain in the urban North, the welcoming into their fold of southern conservative cousins like the Southern Baptists produced a shift of strength to the southern Bible Belt. This change paralleled the establishment of Dallas Seminary, a fundamentalist graduate school in the South. Southern conservative social values, which traditionally included the subordinate place of women in society and church, typified an increasingly large segment of the fundamentalist constituency.

The early fundamentalist involvement in social action waned as the movement became more rigid. Historical distance from earlier temperance and suffrage crusades decreased one’s chances of hearing evangelical women speak publicly in church. The secular feminist movement certainly lost steam and direction after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment granted women the vote in 1920. As evangelicals turned from active social concern and reform to institution-building and theological squabbles, women lost opportunities to speak out on behalf of others as they had done in support of temperance and suffrage.

Institutionalization. Both Moody Bible Institute and the Evangelical Free Church illustrate the process of institutionalization and its effect on women’s roles. Changes in educational programs in these denominations furnish one indication of this change. MBI, for instance, began in the 1880s as a practical training center for women and men in lay ministry. MBI’s inauguration of a graduate school a century later suggests an enormous transformation. Similarly, early Free churches typically supported itinerant lay evangelists rather than seminary-trained pastors. The establishment of doctoral programs at Trinity University later in the twentieth century also indicates immense institutional transition.

With the rising social status of many churches came the demand for professional, seminary-trained clergy in place of charismatic lay ministry. As frontier churches previously viewed as home mission fields increased in numbers and wealth, congregations could afford to support a married man as minister. Some considered the presence of a female pastor a tacit acknowledgment of a church’s poverty.

Educational attainment and credentials often replaced spiritual gifts as the essential leadership qualifications. The establishment of interdenominational Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924—the nation’s first strictly fundamentalist seminary—symbolized this shift. Lewis Sperry Chafer, undoubtedly influenced by Charles Scofield’s view on women while teaching at Philadelphia College of the Bible, was the founder of Dallas. Emerging from the modernist-fundamentalist debates of the 1920s, it admitted only born-again male college graduates endowed with ministry gifts. Chafer clearly distinguished his school from Bible institutes, claiming that “those Bible courses which have been designed for laymen and Christian workers generally are not adequate as a foundational Bible training for the preacher or teacher.”

In the first quarter of the twentieth century, Bible institutes furnished a large slice of local church leadership and influenced theology accordingly. Later, Dallas and similar schools began training the men who went on to administer and teach at Bible institutes When evangelical churches were clamoring for seminary-trained pastors, Dallas sent out only men to fill those posts. Other seminaries trained women but discouraged them from preaching and pastoral roles.

By the mid-twentieth century, churches increasingly directed women gifted to minister away from pulpit and pastoral duties toward safer spheres of service. Since World War I, the rapidly rising field of religious or Christian education has drawn trained women into its fold. A female Bible institute graduate who in 1910 might have pastored a small church or traveled as an itinerant revivalist would by 1940 more likely serve as a director of religious education.

Professionalization affected women’s service on the mission field as well. Foreign missions continued as an acceptable ministry option for women throughout the twentieth century. But the shift to overseas specialties in medicine, education, agriculture and construction influenced perceptions of appropriate roles for women. Before specialization, churches sent missionaries primarily as preachers, church planters and Bible teachers, with women filling those positions along with men. As specialization increased, women more often than not filled supportive roles as men handled preaching and pastoring. And female missionaries unused to preaching overseas felt less comfortable in American pulpits on furlough.

In summary, women found declining opportunities for leadership in evangelical churches, schools and agencies as institutionalization squelched earlier gift-based forms of ministry. In worship as well as in education, routinization set in. In a shift toward more regulated and formalized church services, praying and speaking were no longer left to chance. Structured rather than spontaneous worship tended to exclude women from public participation.

Fundamentalist reaction to social change. Opposition to women’s public ministry was part of a post-World War I reaction to vocal, extreme feminism and a perceived decline in womanhood. Dress, appearance and habits constituted the most conspicuous signs of American women’s growing independence. Shorter skirts, bobbed hair, cosmetics, public smoking and drinking—these externals marked the “liberated” woman. More substantially, the expansion of women into the workforce produced growing economic independence.

The onset of the Depression undoubtedly accelerated the return of fundamentalists and evangelicals to traditional values. Evangelicals feared that cultural trends toward women’s freedom in dress, habits, morals and occupations might destroy the family. As churches identified women preachers and pastors with the secular women’s movement, opposition rose. Hoping to save the American home, many evangelicals narrowed their view of appropriate women’s roles. The attack by John R. Rice, a separatist fundamentalist, against Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers illustrates how these issues connected in this era.

The backlash in conservative Protestant circles against changing social mores can be traced in Moody Monthly magazines of the 1930s. Numerous articles appeared on the “new woman,” exposing the ill effects of modern morality. The disturbing shifts in the roles and behavior of women in American society frightened conservative Christians. Convinced that the survival of the traditional family and of the entire social order was at stake, many evangelicals tightened their approach to women in church ministry. Might not women’s leadership there give encouragement to other destructive tendencies?

MBI and other evangelical institutions began to advocate a more limited role expectation for women in an effort to maintain traditional family and moral values. In the process, evangelicals took away ministry opportunities from women.

Fundamentalist exegesis. In reaction to perceived threats to the family and society, many fundamentalist institutions revised their earlier perspectives on biblical teaching on women. Fundamentalists no longer interpreted the passages in 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 14 as occasional advice for specific problems; instead these passages were regarded as giving transcultural principles for all times and places.

In the early twentieth century, fundamentalists had tightened the lines around the concept of inerrancy; it became one of the Fundamentals and was understood to require a literalistic interpretation of Scripture. Opposition to women ministers may have been formalized as a byproduct. Just as the South had employed extremely authoritative and literalistic views of Scripture to justify slavery, the North adopted similar attitudes toward women after the modernist battles. As this type of literalism became entrenched, fundamentalists interpreted passages about women more rigidly.

Opportunities for women to preach and pastor declined as evangelical churches identified such service as contrary to Scripture. Support of women’s public ministry came to be seen as a denial of biblical inerrancy. Straton’s 1926 pamphlet was one of the last publications from the fundamentalist camp arguing for women’s right to preach. Few evangelical men followed in the steps of Moody, Gordon, Simpson, Franson, Riley and Straton to publicly defend women preachers. When the publications containing feminist exegesis from the evangelical perspective went out of print, little appeared to replace them. Unable or unwilling to view women’s public ministry as consistent with Scripture, evangelical churches increasingly labeled their pulpits “For Men Only.”

This shift in biblical exegesis produced theological reformulation. For example, the same premillennialism used by Gordon and Franson to advocate women preachers was utilized by later writers to restrict women. Certain dispensationalists began to interpret women’s leadership as an evil sign of the end times, identifying such women with the whore of Babylon.

Turn-of-the-century evangelicals committed to the imminent, premillennial return of Christ had put their intense convictions into action. The urgent need to mobilize workers to spread the gospel worldwide left no time for one sex to remain silent. Later premillennialists apparently retained intellectual assent to Christ’s soon return but relaxed considerably on the urgency of evangelizing the world. They proved more concerned with opposing evolution than promoting evangelism, and thus evangelical recruitment of female preachers subsided.

Although knowledge of the past does not and should not dictate the future, it helps illumine how recent attitudes toward women developed. For several decades at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth, evangelical churches did not leave the public gifts of women in the church buried. We, in turn, dare not bury the accounts of those courageous, committed pioneer women.

Monday, May 17, 2021

Christians put away sin: Genesis 35

 In the aftermath of the rash action of Jacob's sons against the men of Shechem (Genesis 34) God tells Jacob to move to Bethel. Jacob follows God's command and he tells his family to renew their commitments to God and back up their commitments with real actions. He said,

Put away the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your clothes. (Genesis 35:2)

The point is that Jacob' family should follow the future First Commandment: You shall have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:3-6).

False gods are not the only thing God's people should put away; but it starts there (see Colossians 3:5). The actions Jacob tells his family to do have parallels in Christianity. When believers come to Christ, they put away their former sinful ways of life.

Ephesians 4:22-32

You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Rules for the New Life So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil. Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.

Colossians 3:8

But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth.

Jacob said, "purify yourselves." The Christian cleansing is baptism (Acts 22:16). It is faith expressed in obedience and it is God's condition for salvation (Acts 16:30-31;  1Peter 3:21). Plus, it is not something the believer actually does but the believer submits to it and somebody else does it.

Jacob also tells his family to change their clothes. Christians perform a similar change of clothes.

Ephesians 4:24 (highlighted above)

Ephesians 6:13-17 (Take up the whole armor of God)

1 Peter 5:5

In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

I am especially intrigued that Jacob's people also gave up the rings that were in their ears. What is the deal with ear rings (c.f., Exodus 33:4-6). Maybe removing them expresses grief. Terence Fretheim notes that ear rings are potential resources for making idols* (Exodus 32:2-4; Judges 8:24-27). I think Fretheim is on the right track. And like Jacob's people, Christians should not only put away their sin but we should do all we can to also put away sin triggers. I can give effort to avoid situations that motivate sin. I can also find an accountability partner who is invited to frequently ask me if I have engaged in the sin to which I am personally vulnerable.

Putting away the old self is a choice each believer makes and does and it is an motivated by her/his faith.



* Terence Fretheim, "Genesis," NIB, Abingdon, OliveTree e-resource.

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

Deborah, a Public Minister for Yahweh

 I am fascinated at the efforts some people will exert to show that the judge Deborah exercised no leadership work over any men.

In a recent article, the writer argued

It can be seen that Deborah's ministry was private, not public.  This is consistent with the teaching of the Old  and New Testament. Although the nature of the ministry of man and woman is different, their value and importance is the same.*

 This statement is the classic complementarian talking point. Men's and women's roles are equally valuable, just different. When the details are examined, women's ministry opportunities are no where near as valuable as those available to men. People who make those points seem to think they are making them from the Bible; but they are not. They are making them up out of whole cloth. I will set that track aside for now since the point of this article is to show that Deborah's ministry as judge was fully public and carried the full authority of a prophet of Yahweh.

Here are some of the usual points to show that Deborah performed her duties as judge in a non-public way.

  1. She did her judging under a palm tree.
  2. She was not an assassin like Ehud nor a warrior like Othniel.
  3. She sent messengers to men rather than addressing them directly (Judges 4:6).
  4. Her word was not her own but the word of the LORD (Judges 4:6, 14).

 On the motif of (1) sitting under a palm tree to judge, I don't see how that method makes for a private ministry. In later times, people would go to the elders in the gate of a city and ask for judgment. The kings of Israel assumed the old judge roles in their administrations and people would go to the palace for justice. If people went to Deborah for judgment and her decision was final, her word was respected by the people, both men and women.

On (2) the fact that Deborah was not personally violent, again, I don't get it. Do you have to go out and kill someone to be a leader? Deborah clearly thought war was men's work (Judges 4:6-7). Barak wanted Deborah with him on the battlefield. She warned him that the greatest credit for victory will go to a woman (Judges 4:9, the woman turned out to be Jael). (Incidentally, any glory enjoyed by any of the actors in this story was given by God, Judges 5:24-31).

 On (3) Deborah's use of messengers showing that she did not let her ministry slip into men's work, I propose we consider Elisha who sent a messenger to Naaman (2 Kings 5:10-11). I suppose what Elisha did for Naaman was women's work. Naaman seemed to think so.

On (4) her word being not her own but the LORD's, that is the role of any prophet. They are not
to speak any "word of Yahweh" presumtively.

All four of these points are non-arguments.

Furthermore, I reject the assumption that Christian leadership is something that is done overtly publically and non-up-front leadership is women's work. Great prophets of the Old Testament (including Deborah) did both public and private ministry.

Complementarians have a lot of trouble with Deborah and they tend to write a lot to shrink her work to their picture of women's work.

They THINK their views of women's roles come from the Bible; but that's not really where they get it. They get it from somewhere else and then go to the Bible to support their pictures. Many articles promoting Deborah as a non-public minister include the usual scriptures to show that she could not possible have been a leader over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:33-35), or they just say something like, "The New Testament says so." Many scholars have shown in writing that these verses do not function to keep women out of public ministry. They have argued from a high view of scripture. Look them up.

Deborah's ministry as judge was public. The Israelite judges were the forerunners of the eventual kingship of Israel. Deborah was performing a ministry that was eventually absorbed into the Israelite kingship.

It is quite embarassing that this article needs to be written. I am astonished that people can read the account of Deborah and conclude that she did not perform any of the ministries reserved for men. (I am only a little less astonished that people can study the New Testament and conclude that there is ministry reserved for men)!


 *   Daniel Yuen, MeWe post, 20210430.

Sunday, April 25, 2021

Outsiders and the Community of Faith: Genesis 34

In Genesis 34, Jacob's daughter Dinah is raped by a man of prominence in a nearby town called Shechem. This story has a lot to say to modern Christians and the modern church as it ministers to outsiders (unchurched), to the truly repentant and to abuse victims.

Interestingly, the rapist in this story is named after his hometown, Shechem. It is possible that Dinah and Shechem had met (Genesis 34:18-20). By the time Dinah visited Shechem to hang out with her girlfriends, she may have been developing feelings for the man Shechem. Shechem's tender feelings for Dinah are abundantly clear as they are mentioned five times in this account.

Dinah's brothers are incensed over this affair and they deceptively invite the people of Shechem to join Jacob's family and religion by submitting to circumcision. In their deception, the brothers go into the town while the men there are recovering from the painful procedure. They kill all of the male Shechemites and pillage their town.

Jacob rebukes his sons for this action as it will only cause trouble for him and his household in relation to his Canaanite neighbors.

The law (which comes later, Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:28-29) prescribes the proper way to treat rapists in that particular social context. Rapists were expected to take their victims as their wives and they were not permitted to divorce them. This law protected of the honor of the family of the rape victim and the honor of the rape victim herself. There would have been more damage to her honor if she remained in her father's house unmarried.

What we see in Shechem is full and sincere intention to do the right thing (his love for Dinah is mentioned five times). He is prepared to pay the bride price to Jacob even if the price is set ridiculously high. This man did not come to Jacob and his sons with artificial statements of "If I have done anything that has caused offense, I repent." He acknowledged his error and was ready to take all possible actions to make it right.

Dinah's brothers' suggestion that the two peoples become one people with one religion is the right response on their part... if they were not being deceptive! For Christians circumcision correlates to baptism.

Colossians 2:11-14 (NRSV)
In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.

Christian baptism joins the believer into covenant relationship with God. In Jacob's family, that's what circumcision did. The people of Shechem were coming to God and, by covenant, God would have added the people of Shechem to the faith community (= Jacob's family).

But Jacob's sons did not treat the Shechemites as brothers. They double-crossed them.

This story invites readers to talk openly about rape and rape victims. How should the faith community minister to rape victims today? How should we minister to abusers when they offer half-baked repentance? How should we minister to abusers when they offer sincere repentance complete with acknowledgement of the pain they have cause and real invested action to try to repair the damage in any way they can?

How ought the faith community minister to outsiders who are very different from us but nevertheless seek sincere relationship with God? They are unchurched and they were not raised right like we were. Can we accept them into our church family?

As brothers Levi and Simeon were united against an outside enemy, their artificial unity led to strife between each other and their respective families (Genesis 49:5-7). Any unity we enjoy as we focus on the outside enemy eventually leads to internal disunity within our own ranks whether we be a nation, a church or a nuclear family. This thought will take a lot of attention to implement in Christian ministry.

Finally, notice that Jacob believed that his sons had placed fulfilment of God's promise in jeopardy (Genesis 28:13-15; c.f., Genesis 12:1-3)! Jacob fully believed that he needed to personally participate in the fulfilment of God's promised blessing and his sons needed to participate in the fullfilment of God's promise to Jacob's family. Failure to embrace God's promise results in failure to receive it. God's promise can be resisted. We must also participate in fulfilment of God's promise. Participation is exactly what we do when we submit to God's covenant terms as described in the New Testament.

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Romans 9. Notes.

 I have a lot of notes on Romans 9. In this article, I will merely present my notes on the chapter. It will not be a proper article but a collection of notes. It will be like, instead of turning in the research paper, I turned in only my note cards. Nevertheless, I think my notes will be helpful for any readers who consider the chapter difficult.

Incidentally, the chapter is difficult; but that difficulty springs more from so much Reformist-style preaching about God rather than a reading would through Near-Eastern First Century eyes. Paul is struggling with something in this chapter but it is not over God's arbitrary—or conditional— election of individuals. Paul is struggling with the roles played by Israel and gentiles in God's election. Anyway, here we go:

Rom 9:1 — Rom 9:4 (NRSV)
God’s Election of Israel
Chapter 9
​1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;

The title of this chapter, "Romans 9:1 (ESV)
God's Sovereign Choice," in ESV, is Calvinistic.

This point is very important! This chapter (and the next) builds on what is introduced in this paragraph: If the kingdom of Christ belonged to the Jews by inheritance, why did the Jews fail to inherit it? It is NOT because God predestined the Jews to be cast out. Quite the opposite! They were predestined to inherit it; but they failed—a choice they made on their own—with no push from God. God was pushing them to embrace the kingdom; but they rebelled against God's influence and rejected Christ (John 1: 11).

 Romans 9:5
5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

On whether this verse in translation should explicitly support the deity of Christ—I'm not convinced.

While Jesus is Israel's messiah, spiritually, Jesus is everybody's messiah.

Romans 9:6
6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 

On the most obvious level, God's promise to Abraham's decedents (Genesis 12:3) was not received by all of Abraham's descendants. Some of them were excluded from the promise (Ishmael and Esau). The same thing is happening now (says Paul). Not all Jews are a part of that promise.

On another level, it turns out that inclusion in the covenant is not based upon descent from Abraham or keeping the law, but rather on faith in Christ. That's a big surprise to Jewish believers. It is the issue of chapters 9-11 and concluded in Romans 11:26-28.

Matthew 3:8-9

 For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, (NRSV)

So we have two Israels: Ethnic Israel (most of whom reject the Messiah) and believing Israel, which includes Gentiles!

Something interestingly subtle is happening here. The Jews called Abraham their father; but they behaved as if Moses was their father.

Why do Calvinists start reading in verse six?
Paul is asking if God's election of Israel was a screw-up on God's part. After all, most Jews don't even believe in their own Messiah.

Romans 9:7
7 and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.”

 Quoted from Genesis 21:12

 Rom 9:8 — Rom 9:9
8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.”

Quoted from Genesis 18:10

 Rom 9:10 — Rom 9:11
10 Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue,

Adam Clarke's note on "children":

For the children being not yet born - As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.

 Romans 9:12
12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.”

Quoted from Genesis 25:23 and refers to Jacob and Esau.

Note that this prophecy never applied to the two boys. During their lifetimes, Esau was greater than Jacob. He was significantly more wealthy by the time Jacob returned to Esau, Esau refused the gifts Jacob offered because Esau was clearly better off that was Jacob (Genesis 33:9).

 Why does Paul seem to indicate that actions had nothing to do with it when on the national scene, actions were the primary cause? The answer is that general national faith was the problem. (Really, few Jews were right with God in Old Testament times; and, reasonably, not all Edomites were "not right" with God). Above that, Israel is at this time, in the position of the older brother in relation to the gentiles. Why? Because of unbelief. Paul is against merited election. While obedience of faith is the criteria, obedience to the Law is not. Just get used to this: When Paul says, "Not of works," he means the non-heart works of the Law. Getting circumcised and eating a kosher diet is not the way to covenant relationship with God. Faith is the way.

Adam Clarke:
that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.
Therefore,
He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.
When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.
He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained Only by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are Now laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.

N. T. Wright, "Commentary on Romans," NIBC:
Romans 9:11 (NIBC)
Of course, the phrase “not by works” occurs in many other contexts, not least in Romans, and as we have argued elsewhere its primary emphasis is on the “works of Torah” as the practices that mark out the Jew, the one who knows and (supposedly) does God’s will (cf. 2:17-24), from the surrounding pagan world. In the present passage, though the emphasis is on “works” as the doing of good rather than evil, the background in Paul’s mind is most likely the regular rabbinic exegesis according to which the patriarchs were already obeying the Torah, even before it was given to Moses. Paul’s point, as part of his answer to the question posed by unbelieving Israel, is that God’s stated purpose always involved a division within the family. The quotation from Gen 25:23 gives us, finally, the word that was spoken to Rebecca concerning her unborn twins, reversing the natural assumption concerning the rights of the firstborn.

 Romans 9:13
13 As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”

The Jews may think they have a "first born" privilege to it; but, as evidenced by Ishmael and Esau, there is no such thing as a first-born privilege.

The argument matches that of Galatians 4:21-31 in which Jerusalem correlates to Hagar and her son Ishmael, but the church is represented by Sarah and Isaac.

 Quoted from Malachi 1:2-3
Malachi means the nations, not the boys. (Malachi's's prophecies postdate Jacob and Esau by at least 900 years!)

Describing "hate" as "loved less" is off topic. By the time of Malachi's prophecies, Edom was a dry raisin of a nation. It was disappearing.

The correct understanding is that God chose to favor one nation more than another.

God prospers a nation and he withholds prosperity from another nation. A reading of the book of Obadiah shows that Edom earned God's displeasure.

 Romans 9:14
14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!

Crossef: parable of the landowner.
Matthew 20:1-16

 Romans 9:15
15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Quoted from Exodus 33:19 in reference to God permitting Moses to see him from behind.

The point here and in Exodus is that Moses received God's mercy. Note that Moses refused God five times (Exodus 3:11, 13; 4:1, 10, 13).
Moses had doubts about God fulfilling his promises (Exodus 6:10-12, 28-30).

Moses is being compared to Pharaoh. What is the difference? Moses eventually obeyed.

 Romans 9:16
16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

The Jews were accepting of God's limitation of his promise to only Isaac and Jacob. They believed God was just to extend freedom to some and not others. What comes as a surprise is that God is again (says Paul) imposing a limit to those who are chosen: to those who put their faith in Jesus Christ!

Some (many) Jews are left out because they reject Christ. That comes as a surprise to Jews, both believing and unbelieving.

Paul is building up to an even greater surprise: that Gentiles are recipients of this choice/election, even though they are not descendants of Abraham (vss 30-33)!

 This verse, by itself, seems to teach unconditional salvation (election?). Is Paul teaching unconditional salvation here? Such a conclusion is contradicted by Philippians 2:12-13.

We must keep context in mind.
Rom 9:31-32
31 But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the righteousness of the law. 32 Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works. ...
(HCSB)

The "human will or exertion" here refers to the Jewish claim to salvation by adherence to the law of Moses.
Romans 4:4-5
Does salvation depend on faith? Romans 4:16 says it does! But from where does it come? God, who shows mercy.

 The context is still about national vocational election—not particular salvation.
(ponder this thought)

 Romans 9:17
17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”

quoted from Exodus 9:16. The context is Exodus 9:13-17 (the hail plague) which shows that God was being extraordinarily patient with Pharaoh--waiting for Pharaoh to have a change of heart.

Exodus 10:7 - very important observation. Hardening is not equivalent to determinism.

 Pharaoh, in this quote, is being applied to Israel, who had many-many warnings; but their hearts got harder and harder.

 Romans 9:18
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

For further study:

Romans 1:24, 26, 28
Ephesians 4:19
1 Timothy  4:2
2 Thessalonians 2:11

Origen: Pharaoh’s heart was hardened in the following way: God did not want to punish him immediately and completely. Although Pharaoh’s wickedness was enormous, God in his patience did not withdraw the possibility of conversion from him. Instead he struck him lightly at first and then gradually increased the blows. But although God acted with patience, Pharaoh was hardened by that very thing and became even more angry with God and contemptuous of him.… Therefore it is not that God hardens whom he wills, but rather that whoever is not softened by his patience is thereby automatically hardened. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

 Jonathan Williams
Facebook post
Calvinism Theology VS The Rest of Christianity group
2018 06 05

I would like to propose a question for discussion pertaining to the "hardening" part of Rom 9:18 which says, "So then he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires."

Here is my question, if the Calvinist interpretation of Total Depravity is correct, i.e., because of a person's utter deadness in sin and complete inability to respond to the Gospel which requires that God regenerate him prior to faith, then why is it necessary for God to harden people?

Let me repeat it with fewer words: if the Calvinist interpretation of Total Depravity is correct, why is it necessary for God to harden?

Although all, of course, may respond, I especially look forward to the answers from my Calvinist brethren.

Thank you and may God help us grow in our understanding.


 I wish to point out something that may make a Calvinist uncomfortable. If this chapter teaches salvation predestination, then this verse teaches double-predestination—that God selects some to be saved and he deliberately selects others to be damned.
Same with vs 22

 on Romans 9:18
A hardened heart does not imply a person has been made impervious to outsides influences. See, for example, Exodus 10:1-7! In that case, the hearts of the officials were hardened; but they saw the foolishness of their chosen path and counseled Pharaoh to concede to Moses' demand.
Hardening has a cumulative effect--the more that opportunities to repent are rebuffed, the harder the heart grows; like thick callouses. ... like a conscience that is seared with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

Let us not become attached to the status quo!

 on Romans 9:18
See Romans 1:28

Paul is not quoting a specific scripture here; but clearly he means the many mentions of Pharaoh's heart hardening in the book of Exodus.

The first mention is in Exodus 4:21 and we should note that Jewish scholars read this passage as applying to Pharaoh's own self-hardening of his heart—using God's actions as a pretext.

Marcus Kalisch (1828-1885) wrote, "The phrase 'I will harden the heart of Pharaoh' means 'I know that I shall be the cause of Pharaoh's obstinacy; my commands and wonders will be an occasion, an inducement to an increasing obduration of his heart."
(Gleaned from the notes to the Revised English Version, revisedenglishversion.com)

God's repeated extending of invitations to return puts individuals in a position to accept (praise God) or refuse. Repeated refusals results in hardening.

As the hillbillies say, the same sun that hardens clay melts butter.

 Quick comparison regarding the notion that God's hardening is some divine external force imposed on an individule: What does "Lead us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13) mean if not "Do not let us be led into temptation?"

 Romans 9:19
19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

 Possibly verse 19 is about the Jewish effort to argue that it is possible to acquire salvation by keeping the law -- or by merely being Jewish. Of the several ways to understand verse 19, one is not to understand it as God's forcing people to be bad. That approach contradicts the "patient endurance" (vs 22) motif in the following verses.

It really seems to me the complaint is that, if God is able to take Israel's disobedience and make something good come out of it, then, "Why is Israel condemned for its disobedience?"

"For who can resist his will?” (NRSV)
is misleading. It implies God makes people do whatever they do--even if it is evil.

What is meant is, "Who has successfully withstood the purpose off God?"

better:
Who can resist whatever God wants to do? (God's Word)
who is able to go against his purpose? (Bible in Basic English)
for who resists his purpose? (Darby)
Who can fight his will? (NCV)

 Given the above note, this verse is best paraphrased as:

Why does God require faith in Christ if, by the Jews' unbelief, God is nevertheless glorified in their unbelief?

The hypothetical questioner is criticizing God for having such a criteria--not for having "no criteria!"

 Romans 9:20
20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?”

What is being compared here is a person who has faith in God and a person who ARGUES with God.

Note: the clay affects the kind of vessel he becomes by his choices (2 Timothy 2:20-21).

Jeremiah 18:1 f God will deal [enter into covenant?] with the Jews based upon their repentance.

The passage may also allude to one of the following:
Job 10:9; 38:14
Psalm 2:9
Isaiah 29:16 clay tries to refashion God
Isaiah 41:25
Isaiah 45:9 criticizing God's work
Isaiah 64:8


God did not chose to make me this way. I made that choice. The better question should have been, "Why did I harden my heart against God?"

See also Wis 15:7; Isa 44:9-20
Sir 33:13

 Romans 9:21
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

Note how many lumps of clay there are (1) and how many vessels (2). This is what God is doing with the one people Israel.

 Some (Calvinists) think this passage says God elects some to eternal life while allowing others to remain damned to eternal hell. It is not unfair (they argue) because everybody deserves hell. Vs 22 refutes the Calvinist aversion to double-predestination. Check it out.

The natural reading of this passage (in both English and Greek) describes these honorable or dishonorable vessels as the end result of a long (life-long) process.

The problem is that some (particularly unbelieving Jews) are like a lump of clay that refuses to go into the shape conceived by the potter; so the potter works with the unruly clay until it is formed into a different kind of vessel.

 Romans 9:22
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction;

 Holman, REB and NCV alter this verse to soften it--attempting to avoid the view that God predestined some people for Hell.

I think an accurate translation will stand on its own.

One point to observe is that God is patient (longsuffering). If God is outside of time, what is there to be patient about?

 "desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power" (NRSV) points to the inclination of a righteous God--who wants to step in and stop evil at its beginning; but he endures--working something redemptive out of people's bad choices. See REB, CEV, NASB, KJV

"endured" (NRSV) is well chosen here. God is negatively affected by people's evil.

"made" (NRSV) does not require that God made them that way. No. God's work of love and mercy causes the hardening in the hearts of obstinate people.

Wrath: Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5
"In all these verses the wrath is God's reaction to sin and not a predestined phenomenon. Thus Paul is emphasizing God's righteous anger but is not saying that God created people purely for wrath.... In chapter 9 the 'vessels of mercy' are believing Jews and 'the vessels of wrath' are unbelieving Jews.... Moreover, in the same way that he 'prepared' [I object to this notion-ns] the vessels of wrath for destruction, he has prepared the saints beforehand for glory. Once again this is God's predetermined will in producing salvation in his elect (on this see Romans 8:29). Note that the first use of glory in this verse is God’s glory, and this second use refers to the glory the saints have in him. Once more this is our present glory (the already) as an anticipation of our final glory (the not yet), with the greater emphasis here on the glory we will have in eternity" (Osborne. IVPNT, 225).

 made for destruction
If Calvinists believe this chapter is about particular election (predestination) then they are really forced by this phrase to embrace double-predestination (God elects some people to hell).

 Romans 9:23
23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

 prepared beforehand (NRSV)

Exact same word as Ephesians 2:10 which applies to good works.

God is preparing us beforehand for eternal glory yet to come.

Moreover, in the same way that he “prepared” the vessels of wrath for destruction, he has prepared the saints beforehand for glory. Once again this is God’s predetermined will in producing salvation in his elect (on this see Romans 8:29). Note that the first use of glory in this verse is God’s glory, and this second use refers to the glory the saints have in him. Once more this is our present glory (the already) as an anticipation of our final glory (the not yet), with the greater emphasis here on the glory we will have in eternity. (Osborne, IVPNT)

  Romans 9:24
24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Not only is God just in excluding some Jews from his people, but also he is just in turning to the Gentiles. So people become his children not on the basis of their rights as a covenant people (birthright in vv. 3- 4, Romans 9:7- 8) but on the basis of the divine call (the flip side of Romans 3:21 - 4:25, where it is on the basis of faith). (Osborne, IVPNT)

Verses 24-33 (especially 30-31) summarize the chapter.
Noticing as much betrays the meaning of the chapter--and it is not any kind of limited calling.

Rom 9:25 — Rom 9:26
25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’. ”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.”

Hosea 1:10; 2:23
Osborne: For Hosea [this passage applied to] the northern kingdom, but for Paul it is the Gentiles.
----
Hosea expected the restoration of the northern kingdom; but Paul sees its fulfilment in the New Testament church.

"The very place" in Hosea was the land of Israel, but for Paul it refers to the Gentile mission (or, the mission with respect to the Gentiles.

 Rom 9:27 — Rom 9:28
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.”

Isaiah 10:22-23

Paul's quote is much closer to the LXX; although he paraphrased a bit.

NETS:
And if the people of Israel become like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved, for he is completing and cutting short a reckoning with righteousness, 23 because God will perform a shortened reckoning in the whole world.

It is a warning to Israel that they should repent in order to become part of the remnant who will be saved.

Paul might identify the small number of believing Jews as the remnant.

 Romans 9:29
29 And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah.”

quoted from Isaiah 1:9

It reinforces the fact that, while there is now a place for Gentiles in the scheme of salvation, the Jews had best not let that fact dissuade them from their own salvation.

"Lord of hosts" is rare in the N.T. The only other place is in James 5:4.

 Rom 9:30 — Rom 9:31
30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law.

The question that dominates chapters Romans 9—Romans 11 is the justice of God in light of the contradiction between his promises to his covenant people and the fact that so few of them had been converted. In these chapters Paul answers the question from two perspectives, first from the sovereignty of God to choose whom he wishes (Romans 9:6- 29) and second from the responsibility of Israel to accept God’s gift of salvation by faith (Romans 9:30—Romans 10:21). (Osborne, IVPNT)

 vss 30-31 summarize Paul's lengthy argument. It shows that election boils down to individual choice. If an explanation of 9:1-29 contradicts 9:30-32, then the explanation is wrong.

 Romans 9:32
32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

The faith/works antithesis has been often emphasized (Romans 3:20, Romans 3:27- 28; Romans 4:2, Romans 4:6; Romans 9:11), and as elsewhere their pursuit of righteousness is not at fault but rather their trying to attain it by works.
It was not wrong to pursue the law, but to make it the locus of salvation in light of the Christ- event meant that they rejected God’s Messiah and the salvation he made possible. (Osborne, IVPNT)

 Romans 9:33
33 as it is written,
“See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Quotes Isaiah 28:16

In the N.T. the stone refers to Jesus.
Rom 10:11; 1 Pet 2:6
Rejecting Jesus was the mistake of ethnic Israel.

Monday, February 1, 2021

Review of the New American Standard Version 2020

 I have spent a little bit of time in the New American Standard Version 2020 (NASB2020). The update from the NASB1995 is moderate. The update is definitely more colorful to read and much less "wooden" than NASB1995. I want to focus on the Big Story improvements in the NASB2020.

The NASB2020 reportedly introduced gender inclusive language in passages where gender inclusiveness is implied even though the classical language (Hebrew/Greek) is overtly masculine.

For example, In 1 Corinthians 1:10, NASB1995 reads

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no  divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The NASB2020 presents the same verse as

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Notice that NASB1995's "exhort" has been replaced with the word "urge." Replacing "exhort" is probably an improvement because it is a little easier to understand. Notice also the addition of "and sisters" (italics original, showing that it is not in the original language) in the NASB2020 reading. It is obvious that the verse applies equally to men and women; but the original language applies it to men. Bravo, NASB2020. Unfortunately, the update is not consistent in its view of what is obviously gender inclusive. Consider 2 Peter 1:21. The update reads exactly the same as the previous NASB.

NASB1995 and NASB2020

for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

For comparison, consider how the NRSV (that does an excellent job with the gendered translation).

because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (bold text mine)

So, why did the NASB2020 revisers decided against "men and women" in this verse? Is it because women were never prophets? Perhaps the assumption of the revisers is that the passage is talking only about writers of the Old Testament. That assumption is not necessarily correct; but if your study source is only NASB, you may miss the possibility of the alternative interpretation.

I will go through the verses in the update that I think are remarkable. I will discuss the gendered pronouns first and then I will have some things to say about accuracy.

Gendered Language

Romans 16:1

NASB1995

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea

NASB2020

I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea

These two readings are pretty close. NASB1995's "commend" is replaced with "recommend." I think that revision choice obscures the meaning of the verse. Paul is not telling the church in Rome that this lady Phoebe is a really good Christian and, since she is moving to Rome, the church should welcome her as a fine, upstanding person. No. Phoebe had traveled to Rome for some reason of her own and she was the carrier of the letter. She was going to read the letter to the church or, if someone else read it, she was available to answer clarifying questions about what the letter said. Since she is a fine, upstanding Christian; and because she personally knows Paul and his preaching, she is quite capable of answering whatever questions the believers in Rome might have. "Recommend" suggests that Phoebe is moving to Rome. "Commend" is Paul's way of emphasizing her credentials as a learned disciple. She was not moving permanently to Rome. More likely, she was visiting Rome on business. She carried Paul's letter to the Roman church as a favor to Paul.

"Recommend" damages the reader's understanding of Paul's meaning. Why would the revisers make this change? Maybe because "recommend" is easier to understand than "commend." Unfortunately, the two words have sufficiently different meanings in the context as to obscure the meaning.

Both translations use the word "servant" in describing Phoebe's relationship to the  church in Cenchrea. The Greek word, "diakonon," is the same (except for case) as "diakonos" in 1 Timothy 3:8. They are both gendered masculine. When it is applied to a woman, it, with near certainty, applies to an official capacity rather than a role. Grant Osborne (IVP Commentary) has this to say about the word as it appears in Romans 16:1.

Moreover, this is the masculine noun (diakonos), and if it did indicate a general “serving,” one would have expected the feminine diakonia.

So, translating the word as "servant" further obscures the capacity of Phoebe in Rome.

Another bizarre revision in NASB2020 appears in Romans 16:7 regarding the apostle Junia.

NASB1995

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

NASB2020

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

This verse definitely needed attention in the update. Junia was definitely a woman. There are some Greek manuscripts who changed her sex to a man (Junias); but it is clear why there is a difference among the parchments about Junia's sex/gender. It would make little sense for a scribe to accidentally change Junias (a man) to Junia (a woman). One possible way the name may have accidentally been changed to a feminine version of the name is because nobody in that day named their sons "Junias" but "Junia" was a very popular name for girls. The more likely explanation is that "Junia" was changed to "Junias" because the scribe could not imagine a woman being an apostle!

NASB2020 correctly replaced NASB1995's "Junias" with "Junia;" but the revisers had the unknown scribe's problem of a female apostle. Thus, the revisers further "improved" the verse by taking away Junia's apostleship and instead reported that she is "outstanding in the view of the apostles." Indeed, the apostles in Jerusalem knew about Junia and respected her. Yeah. No. Junia was an apostle (an itinerant preacher) and she even spent time in prison for her preaching behavior. Both versions of NASB obscure this fact.

NASB2020 does not correct a gross flaw in NASB1995's version of 1 Timothy 3:1.

NASB1995 = NASB2020 (the same except for the italics)

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

The word "man" does not belong in this verse. It should read as "someone" or "anyone." The word "he" also does not belong in this verse. There are no masculine pronouns in 1 Timothy 3:1-13. I realize that some may read the qualifications of the overseers and conclude that the candidates must be men ("husband of one wife"); but it should be up to the reader to draw this conclusion rather than for the translator to read that conclusion into the text and make their conclusion clear in the first verse. It is shameful, in my judgment, for a translation to lock a reader into a particular interpretation when the original text permits several interpretations.

A similar screw-up happens in 1 Timothy 3:8.

NASB1995

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain

NASB2020

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money

NASB2020 clearly improves upon NASB1995; but the word "man" does not belong in this verse! It is an example of bad translating.

The update did improve upon 2 Timothy 2:2 with respect to gender inclusiveness.

NASB1995

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

NASB2020

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.

NASB2020 wisely replaced "faithful men" with "faithful people." This improvement was probably safe since everyone today is in full support of teaching women as well as men about the Bible.

General Accuracy

Both versions of the NASB are highly accurate but neither is entirely trustworthy as a sole source for Bible study. In the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, the update did not take into account recent research (the past half-century or so) in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of examples of refrence to the Qumran parchments would definitely improve NASB2020's translation of (for example) 1 Samuel 10:27-11:1; 14:41 and Isaiah 40:6.

There are some other mistakes upon which I have stumbled, and there are certainly more than these two, I will mention in brief.

Romans 4:25, both versions

He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

To be blunt, this translation is incomprehensible. What does it mean? Why not just say "for" instead of "because of?" In rational thought, we may possibly translate the first "eis" as "because of" and the second as "for." Christian Standard Bible in its footnotes translates the verse that way. Common English Bible is pretty good here, but it is far from word-for-word in its translation.

He was handed over because of our mistakes, and he was raised to meet the requirements of righteousness for us.

New Century Version:

Jesus was given to die for our sins, and he was raised from the dead to make us right with God.

NET Bible:

He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification.

There are other pretty good translations of that verse, including any that just translate "for" in both cases of the Greek word "eis."

First Peter 4:6 could be improved in both editions.

For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

This verse is confusing even in Greek. It literally says that the gospel was preached "to the dead." Some translations try clear up this verse by helpfully supplying language that implies the people heard the gospel when they were alive but they are now physically dead (NIV). "Those who are dead" may be people who died after hearing the gospel. It may also mean they were spiritually dead and were not able to respond to the gospel (a popular Calvinist view: "Dead means dead"). Any translation that translates the Greek noun (the dead) to a verb (are dead) cannot be justified by the Greek. Reconstructing the church context of the saying in the verse would be helpful; but so far it seems to be unrecoverable. NRSV in this verse is more literal in this verse; but we are still not helped much by it. I just think a word-for-word translation like NASB should translate this verse word-for-word.

Conclusion

NASB2020 will be one of my study resources. It has not lost its reputation as an accurate translation; but it is not suitable as a sole resource for Bible study.