the Good Question

"Some so-called Christians... sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations. But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you... You and I are Jews by birth, not 'sinners' like the Gentiles. Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law.... No one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.

"But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. My old self has been crucified with Christ.... I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die....

"Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ. How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort?... But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, 'Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God's Book of the Law.' So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, 'It is through faith that a righteous person has life.' This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, 'It is through obeying the law that a person has life.' ...

"Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith.

"Dear brothers and sisters, here's an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case. God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn't say 'to his children,' as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says 'to his child'—and that, of course, means Christ. This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise. For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God's promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise.

"Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised.... Is there a conflict, then, between God's law and God's promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God's promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ. Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law.... And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus....

"Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had. They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their father set.

"And that's the way it was with us before Christ came. We were like children; we were slaves to the basic 'spiritual principles' of this world. But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law. God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children. And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, 'Abba, Father.' Now you are no longer a slave but God's own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir....

"So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world? You are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years.... I plead with you to live as I do in freedom from these things, for I have become like you Gentiles—free from those laws....

"Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God's promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God's own fulfillment of his promise. These two women serve as an illustration of God's two covenants.... And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit.

"So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don't get tied up again in slavery to the law.

"Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. I'll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses.

"But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us. For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love.

"You were running the race so well. Who has held you back from following the truth? It certainly isn't God, for he is the one who called you to freedom. This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!...

"For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don't use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' ...

"So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won't be doing what your sinful nature craves.... When you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.... The Holy Spirit produces... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!

"Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there. Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit's leading in every part of our lives....

"Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save. And even those who advocate circumcision don't keep the whole law themselves. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast about it and claim you as their disciples.

"As for me... my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world's interest in me has also died. It doesn't matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation. May God's peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God."

If you like, read the next post, consisting of my comments on Paul's discussion here.

At length I came in sight of the keeper's farm; and just at that moment the moon peeped from behind a hill, throwing as long shadows as the setting sun, but in the other direction. The shadows were very different too. Somehow they were liker to the light that made them than the sun-shadows are to the sunlight. Both the light and the shadows of the moon were strange and fearful to me. The sunlight and its shadows are all so strong and so real and so friendly, you seem to know all about them; they belong to your house, and they sweep all fear and dismay out of honest people's hearts. But with the moon and its shadows it is very different indeed. The fact is, the moon is trying to do what she cannot do. She is trying to dispel a great sun-shadow—for the night is just the gathering into one mass of all the shadows of the sun. She is not able for this, for her light is not her own; it is second-hand from the sun himself; and her shadows therefore also are second-hand shadows, pieces cut out of the great sun-shadow, and coloured a little with the moon's yellowness. If I were writing for grown people I should tell them that those who understand things because they think about them, and ask God to teach them, walk in the sunlight; and others, who take things because other people tell them so, are always walking in the strange moonlight, and are subject to no end of stumbles and terrors, for they hardly know light from darkness.
[from Chapter 24 of "Ranald Bannerman's Boyhood" by George MacDonald]

"This then is the message," he says, "which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." [1 John 1:5]... Whatever seems to me darkness, that I will not believe of my God. If I should mistake, and call that darkness which is light, will he not reveal the matter to me, setting it in the light that lighteth every man, showing me that I saw but the husk of the thing, not the kernel? Will he not break open the shell for me, and let the truth of it, his thought, stream out upon me? He will not let it hurt me to mistake the light for darkness, while I take not the darkness for light. The one comes from blindness of the intellect, the other from blindness of heart and will. I love the light, and will not believe at the word of any man, or upon the conviction of any man, that that which seems to me darkness is in God....

Neither let thy cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another calls it light, while it looks to thee dark. Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it. But, of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing as interpreted must be right because God does it, is of the devil. Do not try to believe anything that affects thee as darkness. Even if thou mistake and refuse something true thereby, thou wilt do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than thou wouldst by accepting as his what thou canst see only as darkness. It is impossible thou art seeing a true, a real thing—seeing it as it is, I mean—if it looks to thee darkness. But let thy words be few, lest thou say with thy tongue what thou wilt afterward repent with thy heart. Above all things believe in the light, that it is what thou callest light, though the darkness in thee may give thee cause at a time to doubt whether thou art verily seeing the light.
[from "Light" in "Unspoken Sermons, Third Series" by George MacDonald]

¹  Technically, I was listening to an audiobook version from Librivox.org. To see how I am progressing in "Ranald Bannerman's Boyhood" and, when I'm finished, my review of the book, please click here.

Instead, what we have in the Bible is sentences, and the "verses" by no means always coincide with the sentences. All you have to do is read through the letters of Paul to discover that. So—and this is the practical part—think of the Bible's "verses" only as addresses to the location of a sentence or clause within the text. If you don't, the "verses" and "chapters" chop up the Bible into tiny, disembodied pieces. This mentality is the big reason why Christians can often tell you what their "favorite verse" is and be totally unable to articulate how that "verse" has anything to do with the larger flow of thought within the book they quoted.

With that in mind, remember that the Bible was given to us in it's ideal format—books. God gave us this holy Volume as He intended it to be understood. Chapter and verse numbers were not a part of that original intention. They are the invention of men and were added in the 1500s. That doesn't make them evil. It just makes them unnecessary. If they are strictly understood as locators within the text, then they are helpful, but if they go any wit beyond that, then they become destructive to God's people's understanding of His Word. So, don't read "verses." Read books. Don't read "chapters." Read epistles. How does your favorite verse fit into the discussion of the book it's in? How is that book similar and different from other books in the Bible? How do the teachings of Paul compare to the teachings of James? God gave us the books of the Bible, so this is the primary way He intends for us to understand it.

So, how can you begin to study books of the Bible and to break out of the versified mentality? For one, I would suggest reading a book backward, as Maggie and I discussed in the comments of one of the other posts in this series. A book like Hebrews, Romans, Ephesians, or Isaiah, where there is a logical progression of thought throughout the book, is an excellent place to start. This does one very important thing: it forces you to be intentional about watching and understanding how everything fits together. You will have to begin to notice critical words like "therefore," "so," "for," "that," "and," "but," "to," "unto" (which often means something like "for the purpose of"), and "nevertheless." This exercise will help to train your mind, and I think you'll find, the more you focus on understanding books and the whole progressions of thought within them, the easier it will become to ignore the false-chapters and verses, except for locating a part of the text. As you focus on the context and how what you've just read fits into that context, it will become natural to see past the numbers and margins, right through to the parchment and scroll.

And I know I've already mentioned it in a previous post, but I would again like to suggest that you send off for a copy of "The Books of the Bible" edition available through IBS. It's a totally de-versified edition of the Bible, with great book introductions and an interesting and helpful re-ordering of the Books. You can pick one up for about $9 from the IBS website. I can't wait until it comes out in hardback and leather! I'm also looking forward to other publishers running with the concept. If you want to keep up with developments, join the active community on the De-versify Facebook group.

As always, I encourage you to comment, contribute, critique. Join the discussion. Jump on in, the water is fine!

Example Two: "1 Corinthians 13" provides a beautiful description of true love right from God's dictionary. Sure, it is a beneficial discussion in itself, but why did God inspire Paul to write this literary and spiritual treasure exactly where it is in the Bible? Do you just think of it as "The Love Chapter," or do you think of it as a convincing argument that love is the most desirable of all God's wonderful gifts—to be sought before all talents and virtues and means?

I say to you, we frequently have a tendency to see a passage in the context of the whole Bible and how it relates with ideas over in some other book or how it harmonizes with the overall Biblical narrative before we see a passage in the context most immediate to it.

A parable: A certain man began reading Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" series of books. Each time he sat to read, he would choose a random page and read a selection. Sometimes he would read a sentence, sometimes a paragraph, and sometimes a whole chapter. However, after a time, the man found that no matter how frequently he read like this, he could scarcely find any enjoyment in the reading, and no matter how hard he tried to understand the story, he found that the process was so slow and confusing as to be an almost prohibitively monumental task.

The only sensible way to seek to understand the whole Volume of God's Word is to seek to understand the individual books that make it up. But how often we look over the grains of sand, expecting to see a beach! And that just makes no sense at all.

Upon reading Romans 14, one will discover that Paul is not using the term "faith" in the sense of "saving faith" in this passage at all. He is discussing sins of the conscience and referring to personal convictions. Verse 23 and the two preceding verses read as follows:

• It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
  (Romans 14:21-23 ESV)

The New Living Translation, Second Edition, renders the same passage in this way:

• It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there's nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don't feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
  (Romans 14:21-23)

Remember that "faith" (pistis) in the New Testament can refer to intellectual belief, moral conviction, reliance, trust, or a system of belief (only with the direct article "the"). Ouk ek pisteos (οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως) is often rendered "not from faith" and is functionally equivalent to "from doubt." Therefore, pan de ho ouk ek pisteos hamartia estin (πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν) can be translated, "furthermore, all which is from doubt is sin." The phrase ouk ek (οὐκ ἐκ) ("not from" or "not out of") can also mean "against." The Greek word pistis can be translated any one of the following English words, depending on the context: faith, reliance, assurance, belief, or conviction, among others. In other words, Paul is saying, "everything that is done against moral conviction is sin" or "everything you do that is against what you believe is sin."

Robertson agrees: "Faith (pistis) here is subjective, one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience." The Contemporary English Version (CEV) has it, "anything you do against your beliefs is sin." And Eugene Peterson paraphrases it, "If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it's wrong."

John Calvin even commented on Romans 14:23:

• The word faith is to be taken here for a fixed persuasion of the mind, or, so to speak, for a firm assurance, and not that of any kind, but what is derived from the truth of God.
  (John Calvin, "Commentary on Romans", source)

A good summary of what Paul is saying might be: "In these morally-ambiguous sort of issues, follow your conscience. If you believe it is wrong according to God to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, then don't, because though it may not actually be sin, you are sinning by your intention to commit what you do believe is sin."

While Bethlehem Baptist's statement indicates that "faith" in Romans 14:23 is referring to "a heart humbly relying on God's grace," the context doesn't support that interpretation. The points Piper and Bethlehem Baptist are trying to make could be true, but we would never know from this passage. Interpreting Romans 14:23 in this way is going beyond Paul's authorial intent—something of which we've all been guilty with one scripture or another.

Another man attempted to take Piper's first point using this text and take it to a logical conclusion. He wrote,

• Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." If you are not a believer in Christ, everything you do is sin. Going to church is sin, being kind to your room mate is sin, being honest is sin, coming to Campus Crusade for Christ is sin, its all sin! Everything is sin!
  (Dustin Shramek, "The Supremacy of God in the Depravity of Man", source)

Is that true? Is everything sin? Is being honest sin? No. That statement is exactly the opposite of the Ninth Commandment. Isn't that silly? Now, you can have a motive that is wrong while telling the truth (such as, hoping for another's unjust downfall), but the honesty itself is not wrong, your heart is. Jesus settled this in the Gospels. The heart is indeed deceitfully wicked. But there are worlds separating the idea that every deed is a sin for the unconverted and the idea that any action could be done with a sinful motive.

I tell you, it takes just one sin to garner the full and just wrath of Almighty God! Every sin is "exceedingly sinful," and an everything-is-sin theology of sin is unnecessary to a complete theology of salvation and unsubstantiated.

Honesty doesn't have to be sin in order for everyone to deserve Hell—"all men are liars" (Romans 3:4) and "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8). That's both succinct and complete. If you are a liar, you are bound for Hell. And everyone is a liar. (It's just that Jesus has provided a way for them to be rescued from their "part.")

I'm not saying that there aren't often unrighteous motives underlying good actions. I'm not even saying that it's not likely that most good deeds are in fact done out of impure motives. I wouldn't argue with that. I'm saying, let's not call the actions sins if they aren't sins. That's not sending the right message. It's not pointing out the deeper problem.

Blame the marionetter. The heart pulls the strings.

^*  I agree with John's point that "depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man," but Romans 14:23 doesn't speak to this point.

When Greek-speaking people heard the word “baptizo,” they didn’t think immediately of “a religious water ceremony.” They thought of “an envelopment or immersion.” You could “baptizo” your hands into a washbasin. You could be “baptizo-ed” (swallowed up) by death—which is one way they really did use the word. You could be “baptizo-ed” into a culture. You could “baptizo” a spoon into a dish of Jell-O. It was a regular word—one that they could, in turn, use in a theological context if they wanted. So, when they heard the word, it didn’t always refer to the same event, only the same type of event. The context and the intention of the speaker indicated what they understood the word to mean in each occurrence. So, when they heard that John “baptizo-ed” people in the Jordan River, they knew basically what that meant (even if they didn't yet understand the religious significance) before anyone gave them a Strong’s Concordance, a Life Application Study Bible, or a Sunday School lesson on flannelgraph.

The same goes for many other terms. “To save” is an example.

• And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' (Acts 11:13-14 ESV)
• By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)

Does the writer of Hebrews mean to tell us that Noah was able to barter with God for the eternal salvation of his family by consenting to accomplish this construction project for Him? No. But it sure sounds like it if you assume “to save” always means “to save spiritually.”

“To justify” is another example. Just as we use the term today, Greek speakers sometimes meant “to make righteous” and other times meant “to show to be righteous.” That really is a big difference, and the context is the clue.

Read the following three passages very carefully:

• What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.... Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 4:1-5, 5:1-2)
• Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? (James 2:21-25)
• We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16)

Remember that Sesame Street song: “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others by the time I finish my song?”

What’s the problem with these three verses? If you read those chapters in assumption-mode, one of them seems to contradict the others. Certainly this is not true. So, what is the problem? There isn't one. Two different writers are trying to make two different points, using similar terminology but meaning different things by them. Just because I use a term in one way doesn’t mean that my friend who believes just as I do necessarily uses the term in the exact sense. Read Romans 4. Paul leaves no room for justification by works at all. Read Galatians 2. Paul again leaves no room for it. Read James 2. Read it like you’ve never heard the term “to justify” used in any theological sense.

What do you suppose I would mean if I were to say, “Quit justifying yourself!” In a normal conversation you would never assume I’m telling you to quit trying to make yourself innocent! You would assume I’m telling you to quit trying to prove that you are already innocent. When you are justified in a court of law, the judge weighs the evidence and declares that you were innocent the entire time.

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, commenting on James 2:24 concurs: “Present passive indicative of dikaioō, here not ‘is made righteous,’ but ‘is shown to be righteous.’ James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God.”

This is why Paul can say “a person is not justified by works” and James can say “a person is justified by works” and they both be right. These two phrases sound contradictory when we cut them out of their books and paste them next to each other, but they’re not meant to be treated that way. It's like quoting "he said, 'I love pintos'" and "he told them, 'I can't stand pintos,'" when not only is one quoted from a book on the life of George Washington (the president) and the other from a book on the life of George Washington Carver (the botanist), but "pintos" is referring to a breed of horse in the first quote and a kind of bean in the second. Paul and James are not even talking about the same thing. They didn’t hold a conference to discuss which words they would use for what purposes . They aren’t coauthoring a book or even writing to the same group of believers. Paul and James are trying to make two very different points with everyday words. Their vocabularies overlap, but their usages do not. Paul is trying to explain how a person is made righteous in the first place (by grace through faith). James is trying to explain how a person is shown to be righteous in daily life (by obedience out of faith).

But more than that, remember that the word “faith” is also used in different ways in the New Testament? When Paul says “a person is... justified by faith in Christ” and James says “a person is justified... not by faith alone,” they are not using the term “faith” synonymously either. Paul is talking about “saving faith”—genuine, complete, and humble trust in Christ. James is talking about mere “belief”—intellectual assent. The Believer’s Bible Commentary remarks, “Faith apart from works is head belief, and therefore dead belief” (italics mine).

We can get ourselves in trouble when we approach the Bible like it’s not written by—get this—forty different authors... in sixty-six different books... with their own purposes... and messages... in multiple genres... and various literary styles... over the span of more than 1,500 years. And we can get ourselves in trouble when we approach the Bible assuming certain too-rigid terminologies. There is no substitute for the application of logical Bible study methods.

Part 2 will finish up this article by explaining Romans 14:23 and questioning a popular interpretation. What was John Piper thinking? All this and more after the commercial break.

Below is a list of my favorite translations and a brief description of why I think they are handy for "training in righteousness." (in random order):

      Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT)

attention to word-for-word literalness; Majority Text base; in-text notes for clarification, alternate translations, and figurative expressions (which are frequently insightful); in-text elements to denote the plural "you" (asterix), the strong "but" (underline), emphasized pronouns (underline); individual translator (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); evangelical translator.

      Complete Apostles' Bible (CAB)

attention to word-for-word literalness; Majority Text base; Septuagint base; individual translator (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); evangelical translator.

      King James Version (KJV)

attention to word-for-word literalness; Received Text base; useful grammatical clues (such as "ye" and "you" to show plurality, rather than "thee" and "thou" to show singularity, and "will" to show future intention or conditionality, rather than "shall" to show future certainty or obligation); beauty; committee translation (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); familiarity; tradition; reliable.

      Wuest's Expanded Translation of the Greek New Testament(WET)

attention to word-by-word explanation; verbose; accompanied by excellent translational and exegetical commentary; frequently insightful; individual translator (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); scholarly evangelical translator; paragraph formatting.

      Today's New International Version (TNIV)

healthy balance between word-for-word literalness and thought-for-thought literalness; not quite as bound to popular renderings because of tradition as most popular translations; frequently insightful; literal treatment of Greek neuters; case-by-case treatment of gender neutrality; very natural reading for contemporary vernacular; committee translation (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); evangelical; reliable.

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

healthy balance between word-for-word literalness and thought-for-thought literalness; frequently insightful; not quite as bound to popular renderings because of tradition as most popular translations; individual original translator; committee review and revision; evangelical; reliable.

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

healthy balance between word-for-word literalness and thought-for-thought literalness; frequently insightful; not bound to popular renderings because of tradition; some terms presented as Hebraisms; Old Testament especially dynamic; unique Messianic Jewish perspective; accompanied by translational, exegetical, and historical commentary Hebraic, rather than Englishized names; Jewish feel; individual translator (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); evangelical translator.

      English Standard Version (ESV)

word-for-word literalness without becoming wooden; familiar feel due to traditional renderings and style; trusted history (from Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible, to the KJV; then the RV, the ASV, the RSV, and to the ESV now) of committee review and revision; evangelical; reliable.

      New Living Translation Second Edition (NLTse)

attention to thought-for-thought literalness without becoming paraphrastic; frequently insightful; very natural reading for contemporary vernacular; reliable.

      J.B. Philipps' New Testament in Modern English (JBP)

paraphrastic; frequently insightful; unique renderings; individual translator (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); often refreshing reading; paragraph formatting.

      Richmond Lattimore's New Testament (RLNT)

attention to the literary style of each book; individual translation (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); unique translational approach, accentuating the writing styles of the various New Testament writers (when Mark writes, you can really tell it's Mark; when Peter writes, you can really tell it's Peter—the translation doesn't read like it was written by the same guy from book to book); unique perspective—a secular Greek expert and literary scholar without an agenda or a theological axe to grind; paragraph formatting;

      New English Translation (NET)

healthy balance between word-for-word literalness and thought-for-thought literalness; committee translation (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); reliability due to unprecedented accountability in translation; accompanied by copious, lengthy translational commentary and textual notes; evangelical; reliable.

      International Standard Version (ISV)

healthy balance between word-for-word literalness and thought-for-thought literalness; committee translation (can be either a benefit or a drawback, depending on the passage or word); attention to literary elements, style, and genre; evangelical; reliable.

DEVOTIONAL READING

My favorite translations for devotional reading:

• TNIV — especially when my College Devotional Bible is handy. It contains lots of stirring personal testimonies and real life stories for illustration and application. That aside, the TNIV is currently my favorite translation for devotional reading. The TNIV reads so naturally and comfortably to me that my brain sighs with surprise whenever I read at length. (This is the best way I have discovered to express the feeling.) I find myself understanding more of what I'm reading with much less mental effort. In technical terms, I suffer from significantly less cognitive dissonance when I read the TNIV. The fact that I can't stand the NIV, but love the TNIV goes to show that the latter is much more than just an edition of the NIV.
• NLTse — for the same reasons as for the TNIV. There are particular portions of Scripture in which the NLT is much more enjoyable to read devotionally. I often find myself going to the NLT when I need something explained a little more.
• HCSB — especially when reading through a New Testament book. I like the introductions in my Holman Student Bible. Plus, the HCSB often gets things right where other translations drop the ball, and it is often fun to read it to see this happen, especially in passages that are more familiar to you in other translations than the HCSB. I also can't deny my bias, that it gives me some assurance to know that the proprietors of the translation committee (the Southern Baptist Convention and Broadman & Holman Publishers) were solidly evangelical and Baptist, even though only a third of the translators were.
• JBP — on a case-by-case basis in the NT. Frequently, just plain fun and insightful to read. Other times, I don't like the way ol' J.B. renders some passages, but that's the nature of a paraphrase anyway.
• CJB — on a case-by-case basis in the OT. Stern makes the Old Testament cool again just by bringing out that wonderful Jewish perspective which is so needed in English translations. And let's face it: it just doesn't make sense that Greek minds like ours can convey the Hebrew sense as well as a scholarly Hebrew mind can. The Bible is a Jewish book for all ethnicities. So, it's logical for all ethnicities to get a Jewish read on a Jewish book.

FINAL THOUGHT

The saying is true: The best translation is the one you'll read. So, even if you aren't a translation junkie like me, pick up a Bible, read it, believe it, and you'll be the better for it, because "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." ... "The scriptures are the comprehensive equipment of the man of God and fit him fully for all branches of his work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NLT and JBP respectively).