Having a fire insurance salvation will cause us to live clinically.   Placing a ‘tick box’ next to salvation, puts Jesus as a completed item on our To Do List.  Continuing to view our salvation through only this dimension is quite sad, as it is means we have only discovered one aspect of the greater mystery that is our new life in the gospel.  Fire insurance salvation is designed to as the first step on a journey of ‘getting to know’ this incredible -self-sacrificing Saviour who voluntarily gave His life in our place.   As we do this, the foundation of our faith transforms from fire insurance to a love story for the greatest Giver of all.

Having a Love Story salvation will cause us to live generously.  It transforms our behaviour and thinking.   It creates a deeper appreciation and desire for Jesus and others.   A Love Story salvation fosters a stronger satisfaction with life and a greater longing for life beyond the grave.

The older I get, the more my faith grows towards a Love Story salvation.   The reality of fire insurance salvation is still true, but it fades into the background in the face of our loving Jesus.

Blessings

- JC

Silent night, holy night…

The song brings to mind images of moonlit fields and starry skies; shepherds laughing around a cosy fire; an awestruck husband and a contemplative new mum. We’re warmed as we recount the comforting joys of that night so long ago. Our hearts become settled, peaceful, serene…

But underneath the serenity were some ugly realities. For starters, the common notion among family friends and relatives was that Joseph was the dad. Jesus was—in their eyes—an illegitimate child. If there is any stigma to that in our day, it must be magnified a thousand times for us to understand the scandal behind the serenity of this quiet night.

But this scandal pales into insignificance compared to the horror of the second scandal, for on this idyllic night, Jesus was born, a spring of life among a sea of infant corpses. The children born in the months before and after this night would soon be slaughtered at the hand of an angry king simply for their proximity to the events of this serene night.

And if the second was more horrible than the first, the third scandal drowns them both in triviality, for the greatest scandal of this silent night is that God himself, in human flesh, lay wrapped in burial clothes at his birth, thus foreshadowing the day when man would execute the God-man as a criminal.

The ugliness underneath this serene night—far from destroying the beauty of its serenity—makes this night what it was. On this night, God became flesh, and lived among us! God stepped into our world to bear the weight of the curse just as we do, to struggle under the stigma of shame, to feel the sting of loss, to walk alongside us as we live out our exile here.

And we saw his glory. It was the glory of God’s only son. And he was full of grace and truth. That this silent night was right in the middle of scandal and struggle is what makes it so wonderful, for it was into that darkness that God shined the light of his son bringing hope to all peoples in all times.

May your Christmas be blessed. May your worship be joyful.

Grace to you.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly critique the theory that the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible destroys the biblical basis for the doctrine of the full deity of Jesus Christ. It is not my intention to promote the NIV or to defend it on every point, nor is it my desire to denigrate the King James Version (KJV) in any way. It is my desire to clearly lay out the evidence so that those who love truth more than a position may consider the facts. I am not arguing for or against a particular Greek text. I am simply trying to demonstrate that the NIV is not theologically biased against the deity of Jesus Christ.¹

The Danger of the “Stronger” Paradigm

It is true that one translation may be stronger than another translation on a particular doctrine. The deity of Christ is a great example. It is one thing to say one translation is stronger than another on the deity of Christ. It is an entirely different thing to say that the weaker translation “denies Jesus Christ’s DEITY.”² In order to prove that a translation “denies” the deity of Christ, it is necessary to prove that there is a uniform sabotage or bias throughout.

For instance, the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation (NWT) obscures the deity of Christ in all of the key passages.³ Therefore, it is logical and appropriate to conclude that the translators of the NWT allowed their theological bias against the deity of Christ to influence their translation work. In contrast, the presentation of two or three instances where the NIV is “weaker” on the deity of Christ is not sufficient evidence to prove that the translators exercised a theological bias in their translation work. Indeed, it is an assumption to believe that they even had a theological bias against the deity of Christ.

Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center, in response to liberal criticism that the NIV was too conservative and too strong on the deity of Christ said “If they want to accuse me of being biased toward the deity of Christ, I’m honored!”⁴ It would seem logical that translational bias against the deity of Christ would be based on theological belief against the deity of Christ, but the evidence to prove that there is unbelief has not been cogently presented. The burden of proof is on those who level the charge to conclusively prove that the NIV translators denied the deity of Christ.⁵

The danger of the “stronger” paradigm is to think that just because one version is stronger than another, that the weaker version is somehow an attack on the doctrine on which it is weaker.⁶ The strategy that highlights one or two “weaker” readings in the NIV in order to claim that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ is based on a fallacy and must be rejected by those who love truth. D. A. Carson sums it up well when he says “It is methodologically indefensible to hunt for the half-dozen worst mistakes or lapses in judgment in a particular translation, and on that basis write off the whole translation. If that method were applied to the KJV, it too would be written off.”⁷

They Have Taken Away My Lord

One popular stream of thinking advances the concept that “omissions” of titles of deity in the NIV are evidence of a bias against the deity of Christ.⁸ This view, though not held by all, needs to be dealt with because of the way that its promotion has gone unchallenged for all practical purposes. One author says “In John 20:13, Mary was weeping and the angel said, ‘woman why weapest [sic] thou?’ She replied, ‘because they have TAKEN AWAY MY LORD.’ How much more would she weep today, if she was to look at the modern translations, which delete the Lord 39 times. We should weep also.”⁹ The author goes on to present 39 “omissions” of the word “Lord,” 87 of “Jesus,” and 52 of “Christ” in the NIV. It borders on absurdity to even point out that the word “Jesus” occurs 292 more times in the NIV than in the KJV. It would be unreasonable to construct a theory of doctrinal infidelity on the part of the KJV based on some sort of “weak emphasis” on Jesus, and it is just as unreasonable when the situation is reversed. Further, even when the word “Jesus” is “omitted,” there is generally a pronoun in its place which unmistakably refers to Jesus. Always the context clearly explains who is speaking and the terms “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “Lord” are used so many times in the NIV¹⁰ as to make a claim that the NIV is trying to weaken or remove a doctrine by these omissions untenable. Consider the following “omissions.”

Here the title “Lord” is replaced with a title every bit as clear. Below are cases where Christ is referred to with a pronoun.¹¹

Some have claimed that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ based on the fact that it doesn’t capitalise pronouns referring to deity;¹² however such a policy would involved a great degree of interpretation. In other words, there are many places where a pronoun’s reference is ambiguous. For those who charge that the NIV is already too interpretive (dynamic equivalence) in its translation, such a claim is thoroughly inconsistent.

Sometimes an “omission” is really just a matter of chronology.

Since the NIV is criticised for the “omission” of the word “Lord” in verse one,¹³ should the KJV be criticised for the “omission” of the word “Lord” in verse three? Obviously not.

Another argument used by some is that because the NIV removes “Christ” from the formula “Lord Jesus Christ” several times, it must be denigrating the deity of Christ.¹⁴ If we are to follow this logic, we must also condemn the KJV for its “omission” of that very same formula.

We’ll move on with a final quote from D. A. Carson. “The omission of an individual title or phrase or verse does not constitute evidence for theological heresy. Perhaps the omission was part of the original, and the manuscripts that include the title or phrase or verse are guilty of additions.” He goes on to explain that “one would have to ask why the omissions had taken place… it would be necessary to show that the manuscript or text-type in question consistently tries to suppress or deny that doctrine.”¹⁵

A Comparison of the Evidence

It is not possible in a study this size to conduct a full explanation of the technical and textual issues involved in each reading,¹⁶ therefore I will be content to present evidence based solely on a translational basis.¹⁷ A sincere desire for the truth must result in an honest and unbiased look at the evidence. In the following chart, I have omitted twenty-two references where both the NIV and the KJV are emphatically clear in their support of the deity of Christ.¹⁸ The passages below present those places where the NIV and the KJV differ in a passage that deals with the deity of Christ.

One will quickly notice that for every weakness of the NIV, there are more than two in the KJV. Though it is simplistic to base a judgment on mere tallies, the simple fact cannot be ignored—the NIV is as strong as or stronger than the KJV on the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Compare the following passages:

John 1:18 is one of the clearest references to the deity of Christ in the Bible²¹ and yet the KJV has “omitted” it. Shall we accuse the KJV translators of attacking the deity of Christ? Certainly not, but that same logic has been practiced in reverse many times to attack the NIV.

Revelation 1:5 makes it unmistakably clear that it is Jesus Christ Who is speaking in verse eight. While “I am Alpha and Omega” is clearly a divine title being assigned to Jesus, the NIV emphatically states that this Jesus who is speaking is God! For the sake of space, I will not present all the passages but a few minutes looking up each reference in the NIV and the KJV would be time well invested. A final example will suffice.

Here the KJV translation treats “God” and “our Saviour” as two different persons. While the KJV reading doesn’t pose a theological problem, it simply fails to bring out the clear teaching of the deity of Christ that is clear in the original language.²²

In this second chart, several translations are compared in those passages where various translations directly call Jesus “God.”²³

This chart clearly demonstrates that while the NWT has a great bias against the deity of Christ, the NIV actually rates better than the KJV when compared on these terms.

Conclusion

It is easy to hear a statement so many times that you begin to believe it regardless of the validity of the evidence offered. Many have heard the accusation that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ so many times that they simply believe it. Those who honestly desire truth are urged to read the following passages found in the NIV:

• “And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
• “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:5-6)
• “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
• “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3)

How then can we view the NIV as an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ? If there was some sort of conspiracy to weaken the biblical support for the deity of Christ, it failed! The evidence stands firm to assert that the NIV is as strong as or stronger than the KJV in support of the doctrine of the full deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

“What is your most popular Easter egg?”  I asked the lady at Darrell Lea.  She pointed to a large-sized egg.

“Oh, definitely the nougat egg — the whole thing is filled with nougat!”

Sounds way too sweet, I thought.  No offence, nougat fans.

For most people, Easter is a nougat egg.  It’s filled with sweetness (treats and a day off work) but the actual nourishment value may be questionable.

Christians should see Easter as an opportunity to participate in evangelism — to speak nourishing words of life.  The best time you could spend this holiday is to contemplate on the Gospel and communicate it to others around you.

The story of Christ’s atonement and resurrection speaks powerfully to listeners, regardless of their age group or attitude.  Consider:

• Each Gospel places its greatest emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus, as God intended.  Everyone who considers Jesus’ life and teaching must be confronted by his cross and empty tomb.
• John Stott remarks in The Cross Of Christ, “The biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us.”  This is profound truth for believers, no matter how familiar you are with the event.  You can never “get over” the Gospel.
• No other message bears this kind of impact.  It is “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called … Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”  The Gospel both unites and divides, challenging hearts to respond.

This season, I’ve noted again how Jesus’ death and resurrection provokes such a range of responses.  We see the callous indifference of the soldiers and hear the taunts from the crowd.  We sense the panic of the disciples as they flee the terrible scene.

Then you can almost feel the wonder and exhilaration when they realise the Lord is not dead but risen indeed.  They practically trip over themselves to tell the good news.

I like how the Jesus Storybook Bible describes it:

“Mary ran and ran, all the way to the city.  She had never run so fast, or so far in all her life.  She felt she could have run forever.  She didn’t even feel like her feet touched the ground.  The sun seemed to be dancing and gleaming and bounding across the sky — racing with her, and shining brighter than she could ever remember, in the clear, fresh air.  And it seemed to her, that morning as she ran, almost as if the whole world had been made anew, almost as if the whole world were singing for joy…”

Don’t waste your Easter holiday.  Gaze again on the work of Christ crucified.  Peer into the empty tomb.  And run and sing for joy.

Ben Kwok

I suppose we could think of tax as one of a citizen’s liabilities in a contract between a nation and its citizens. A contract that’s broken by death.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to escape our bondage to taxes through death but then to come back to life and still be able to live a full life?

The theology of Easter

Paul addresses this very scenario in Romans 7. He says “While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions… were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.” In other words, because we were alive, because of our citizenship in the kingdom of sin, we were under the law… we were bound to “pay taxes.”

But then he goes on to say “But now we are released from the law.” How? How does one get released from his obligations as a citizen of the kingdom of sin? There is only one way. He has to die. “We are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive.”

For the believer, we are not bound to pay our dues to the kingdom of sin for one reason: We are dead. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death?” (Romans 6:3). Paul summarises in v. 4 this most relevant and powerful theology of Easter: “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death.” Why? “In order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

We are no longer bound to sin for one reason: We died with Jesus Christ. On the other hand, we are alive and free to love and fellowship with God for one reason: We were raised with Jesus Christ!

The great theological theme of Easter is the believer’s union with Jesus Christ. To be more specific, spiritual baptism, a term taken from Romans 6:4.

The point of Easter

The point of Easter is not just that Jesus was raised from the dead. Others have been raised. The point is that he rose from a death he never had to die. A death he died for us.

In his death, Jesus took the condemnation of the ages on himself. If we were to die under our condemnation, we would surely be dead forever. But he took all that and still conquered death!

The point of Easter is not just that Jesus was raised from the dead. The point of Easter is that we have been raised from the dead! Because of our unity with Christ in his death, we have escaped the power of sin! Because of our unity with Christ in his resurrection, we will live forever!

Are you united with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection? Have you been baptised by the Spirit of God? If so, then this week is a time of great celebration for you.

Because he lives, we live.

Grace to you.

You can broach just about any subject with me and I’m willing to listen and consider other perspectives… usually.

There’s one thing that tends to get in the way of my open mind. That’s when someone has a go at someone I love. Don’t get me wrong. I’m still willing to talk about those things and I try to still keep an open mind. But it’s different.

If I were discussing yesterday’s weather, I’d be willing to abandon my preconceived notions and consider any evidence and any theory with an open mind. You could say there’d be about a 95% openness to alternate conclusions.

But when I’m discussing something closely connected to a personal relationship, it’s different. While I’d still be willing to consider any evidence and any theory, I would do so with a certain reserve. You could say there’d be about a 5% openness to alternate conclusions.

In other words, I’m still honest with myself. And I love truth more than my current views. But on the other hand, if you want to convince me to turn my back on those I trust and love, you’ll have to build a fairly solid case before I’m going to make any adjustments to my views.

Why? It’s simple. Relationship.

Of relationship

My relationships construct a zone of solidity in my world. That’s not to say I’m closed minded in regard to them. It’s just that I’m much more guarded once I’m inside that zone.

This reality is not lost on modern society. Sociologists and psychologists tend to recognise and affirm its validity and even necessity. Philosophers and Academics tend to spend their lives wishing it weren’t so. But what about theologians?

Firm belief

One theologian argued from this position when he said to his protégé “continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it.”¹

Paul appealed to Timothy based partially on relationships. The action he defended was to “continue.” Don’t change. Why? Because this is a category of ideas that is “firmly believed.” This firmness of belief is the result, Paul argues, of the relationships through which these things were learned.

What relationships are these? Well, I suppose Paul and Barnabas, his mother and grandmother, the elders in the church there, etc. But ultimately, all of these linked directly back to a relationship with one person—Jesus Christ. And this is where we’ve been headed.

The open minded Christian

I’m open minded. I’m honest with myself. And I love the truth more than any position I hold. But if you begin to question the core, fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ,² you are in the zone.

I will consider your views. I will consider them carefully. After all, I could have a mistaken understanding of the message of God’s Word. But I will consider them with a level of reserve. Why? Because there is a personal relationship in the picture here. There is loyalty.

This throws a spanner in the epistemological works. The rationalists have never quite known what to do with it. The calm discussion about ideas is completely upended by the the personification of those ideas in the person of Jesus Christ.

We walk by faith

Loyalty may skew my objectivity, but there is a word for that—faith. Not an irrational, blind faith. Rather, a rational faith that gives sight to blind eyes. A faith in a historical, real, living person.

In our quest for objectivity and academic integrity, let us not forget the person of Christianity. It is this person who makes Christianity what it is. Without this person, we are lost. But with him, we not only have the joy of friendship with Jesus Christ, but we also have a living defence of the faith.

Continue.

.

A Sneaking Suspicion (John Dickson)  Written primarily for non-Christian teens, the book provides an evangelistic perspective on issues such as relationships and sex, beauty, suffering, morality, and life and death.  John Dickson moves from these life issues to discuss common suspicions about God (“Didn’t science get rid of God?”, “What about other religions?”) and to demonstrate the purpose and power of the Gospel.  The book’s style is very readable and includes descriptive analogies and a good use of logical arguments.

Youth leaders should read this book to consider the thoughtful way Dickson presents the Gospel’s relevance to teenage minds.

How Firm A Foundation (BJU Press)  I think most Christian teens inevitably ask themselves, “How do I know the Bible is true?”  This is a complex question, and teachers have tended to either reduce the issue (e.g. to a KJV-only position) or to become bogged down in the details of manuscripts, history and theology.  This course presents the orthodox teaching on the Bible’s preservation, with clear instruction on the doctrine of inspiration and the reliability of the Scriptures.  The authors are very helpful in presenting both the Bible’s accuracy and an honest view of the Bible’s preservation in history.

Plenty of practical helps are included to engage students’ interest.  Although intended for Christian schools, the course can be adapted for youth groups.  Students will gain a deeper understanding of the Bible’s preservation and a stronger trust in the Word.  Highly recommended.

The Stranger On The Road To Emmaus (John Cross)  This DVD course helps in understanding the Bible as the story of salvation, using Old Testament imagery and stories to lead chronologically to Christ.  Many Christian teens are familiar with Bible stories and are vaguely aware that the Bible is “all about Jesus.”  By tying the Old Testament to the Gospel with various strands, John Cross helps believers to clearly see Jesus throughout the Bible.

The course also powerfully demonstrates the failure of good works to achieve salvation, while showing the need for both repentance and faith in Christ alone.  I’ve found that teens are often confused on this vital point.

Leaders may need to adapt the course’s length, as there are multiple video sessions and discussion times.  Student workbooks are available, as well as a free online text.

Ben Kwok

I showed this to teens at school and asked what they thought.  Their reactions ranged from amusement to indifference, but there were also others who were quite impressed.

Like me, you might not be comfortable with singing out your love at your wedding!  But in any wedding, you want to demonstrate your commitment to the person you marry.  To show their devotion, normally the couple will make public vows to each other and give a wedding ring to each other.  If you truly love someone, it’s natural to demonstrate your love.

Jesus — the expression of God’s love

How do you know God loves you?  For Christians, the popular answer is that God demonstrated his love toward us in this way: “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

When God sent Jesus, how did most people react at that time?  As Jesus was whipped and later crucified, there were scoffers who openly mocked him.  No doubt there were many spectators who watched but were indifferent to Jesus.  His own disciples had initially fled from the scene.  They were ashamed to be associated with him.  God’s love was embodied in Jesus, yet his own people did not receive him.

As his followers and others came to understand the person and work of Jesus, their lives were forever changed.  As they turned to Christ, they realised God’s great love for them.

Because God demonstrates his love through his Son, your life can change too.  Here are five effects made possible by God’s love through Jesus:

1.  You can be born again.

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ…”  Ephesians 2:4ff

2.  You can be freed from your sins.

“To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood…”  Revelation 1:5

3.  You will experience a new way of living.

“I have been crucified with Christ.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.  And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”  Galatians 2:20

4.  You will receive a sense of security from God.

As God loves us, he also gives “…eternal comfort and good hope through grace”  II Thessalonians 2:16

5.  You will learn to really love.

“By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.”  I John 3:16

“And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us”  Ephesians 5:2

That couple can look back on their wedding and treasure the memories.  If you are a Christian, you can look forward to heaven, where you will see Jesus face to face.  The Gospel tells us that the risen Lord still bore the marks from his sacrificial death.  When you see Jesus, you will also see his scars.   They will be an eternal testimony of God’s love for you.

“Here Is Love” (William Rees)

Ben Kwok

In summary: 1) The wealthy in China have property and technology, 2) Furniture will be the next status symbol, and 3) Buying furniture from China is unacceptable (this is ironic considering where the rest of the world buys its furniture…).

The article informed and established an emerging benchmark for determining wealth and status.  Living in Australia – we are exposed to this kind of article all the time through every form of media with increasingly sophisticated levels of interaction.  Facebook and Gmail parse the content of your communication and your browsing habits to deliver targeted advertisements.   We love to talk about our next purchase or our next experience.  We would never admit to this – but we are defining ourselves by what we own and what we have experienced.

Devout men and women in the Middle Ages understood this threat and they cloistered themselves into monasteries to live a chaste life before God.  This disengagement and personal striving led to great theological error.   Equally devout men and women have fused God’s blessing with personal prosperity so closely as to relegate trials to the unbelieving heart and the demonic world.

Consider this:

1)    We have everything we need in Jesus Christ.

2)    This life is temporal – the next life is eternal.

3)    You have an opportunity to glorify God and love others… today.

This time of year is a great opportunity to reflect on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Here are some insights gleaned from John Stott’s The Cross Of Christ:

“In the Christian theology of history, the death of Christ is the central point of history; here all the roads of the past converge; hence all the roads of the future diverge.”  (Stephen Neill, page 49)

‘The cross of Christ “is the event in which God makes known his holiness and his love simultaneously, in one event, in an absolute manner.’”  (Emil Brunner, page 131)

Defining the substitutionary atonement

“God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.”  (Charles Cranfield, page 134)

“In Pauline thought, man is alienated from God by sin and God is alienated from man by wrath.  It is in the substitutionary death of Christ that sin is overcome and wrath averted, so that God can look on man without displeasure and man can look on God without fear.”  (David Wells, page 173)

‘No verse specifically declares that “God himself” died on the cross….The reasons for this are not difficult to find.  First, immortality belongs to God’s essential being….  So he became man in order to be able to do so.   ….The second reason … is that “God” in the New Testament frequently means “the Father” and the person who died on the cross was not the Father but the Son.”  (page 154)

“The biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us.”  (page 159)

The offence of the cross: “All other forms of religion — not to mention philosophy — deal with the problem of guilt apart from the intervention of God, and therefore they come to a ‘cheap’ conclusion.  In them man is spared the final humiliation of knowing that the Mediator must bear the punishment instead of him.  To this yoke he need not submit.  He is not stripped absolutely naked.”  (Emil Brunner, page 162)

On liturgy: “…all progress in the Christian life depends upon a recapitulation of the original terms of one’s acceptance with God.”  (page 265)

On the problem of suffering: “There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross that symbolises divine suffering.”  (page 327)

On witnessing: “It is the crucified man that can preach the cross.”  (G. Campbell Morgan, page 341)