Tag Archives: Bill Mounce

Arminians, Calvinists, and Two Theological Terms Worth Chucking

There are real theological differences, and then there are ways we just talk past each other. In this post I’d like to share two of my pet peeves with how Arminians and Calvinists sometimes define the terms of their debates. The differences are certainly real, and I don’t pretend to understand them in depth. But I’ve heard enough by now to be quite sure that the way we are using some terms probably isn’t helping anyone.

So, in the interests of pugnacity and peace (or at least the latter), let’s get started!

Since I’m more of an Arminian than a Calvinist—though I’ve benefited from listening to both and though I wish I had time to also explore molinism (such as in this book)—I’ll start closer to home and take Arminians to task first.

(1) Arminians, stop saying Calvinists believe in “once saved, always saved”!

If you ask any well-trained Calvinist whether they believe this, they will certainly say “no.” As Craig Keener (an Arminian NT scholar) says, “‘Once-saved-always-saved’ as it is commonly taught in many churches is neither Calvinism nor Arminianism.” Similarly, I recall hearing Bill Mounce, a self-proclaimed 4-point Calvinist (I recall he doubts “irresistible grace”), strongly deny that he believes in “once saved, always saved.” He speaks passionately against the kind of gospel invitation that he heard as a boy—the kind where you are invited to come down the “sawdust trail” to the “altar” and “believe” and—in Mounce’s words—“have a moment of positive volition.” No repentance needed, and not even any clear specificity about what you are supposed to believe. And, if you respond, you are assured that you are eternally saved—no matter how grossly or freely you sin thereafter.

That, my friends, is “once saved, always saved.” And unfortunately, it is what some people promote (both some self-professed Calvinists as well as all true Free Grace advocates, etc.). And some who use the term do seem to use it to promote apparently orthodox Calvinist positions that do not match the scenario above. (For example, this is the first link that pops up on a Google search for the term.)

So what is the problem with using the term? The term “once saved, always saved” normally implies that there is no need for a Christian to live a holy life in order to be assured of salvation. But John Calvin didn’t believe this. Listen to Timothy George’s analysis:

In his commentary on John 10:28, Calvin declared:

…This is a remarkable passage, teaching us that the salvation of all the elect is as certain as God’s power is invincible… He who keeps what we have committed unto him is greater and more powerful than all; and so we have nothing to be afraid of, as if our life were in danger.

This is a rich and nuanced doctrine and cannot be reduced to the shorthand formula “once saved, always saved.” Calvin did not minimize the sin of apostasy, that is, a complete falling away and utter renunciation of the gospel. However, this sin could be committed only by one who had not received the “incorruptible seed” of the Spirit in the new birth. Such unbelievers might show evidence of the Christian life, and might even possess what Calvin called “temporary faith,” but in the end they would prove to be false saints… On the other hand, true believers might fall into sin, even gross sin, but, sustained by the Spirit, they would not totally or finally be lost. Those who took this teaching as an occasion for laxity were presuming on the grace of God and stood in jeopardy of divine judgment. (Theology of the Reformers, Kindle location 4941, bold added)

I am not convinced Calvin is right in every point (as summarized here by George), but clearly we are not doing him justice to claim he believed “once saved, always saved.”

So, what should we say Calvinists believe? Timothy George uses the term “indefectibility of faith” and the Dictionary of the Christian Church uses the term “indefectibility of grace” (pg. 268)—both implying that Christians will not defect (turn away from) from faith or grace. A more common term was made popular through the “Five Points of Calvinism” (TULIP) that attempt to summarize the conclusions of the Synod of Dort half a century after Calvin’s death (these are a summary of disagreements with Arminianism, not a summary of Calvin’s whole theology). This term is “perseverance of the saints,” and it is probably the best term to use if you want to describe what Calvinists actually believe.

A classic explanation of this term is found in the seventeenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of faith:

They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved… Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein… (bold added)

This conundrum naturally raises the question of assurance of salvation—how can one really know whether they are saved or not? The Westminster Confession addresses this topic in the next chapter:

…Such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed… Therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness. (bold added)

This is not Arminianism, to be sure. But neither is it a flippant “once saved, always saved.” This more nuanced theological understanding explains why I have repeatedly heard multiple Calvinist pastors, theologians, and seminary teachers insist that a Christian has no right to be sure of their salvation unless there is evident fruit of holiness in their lives. Not perfection, certainly, and maybe not even the level of holiness expected in some Arminian or many Anabaptist churches. But definite evidence of the fruit of regeneration, nonetheless. Otherwise there is no assurance of salvation.

In summary, only bad Calvinists believe in “once saved, always saved,” just as only bad Arminians believe that they earn their salvation by their good works rather than relying on grace. If you don’t want to be accused of the latter, don’t accuse Calvinists of the former!

Which brings me to my pet peeve for Calvinists…

(2) Calvinists, stop implying that Arminians don’t believe in “Doctrines of Grace”!

“The Doctrines of Grace” is a term Calvinists often use to summarize their classic five points (see above). A quick survey on Amazon shows that this term is currently a favorite phrase among Calvinists choosing titles for their books. A Google search of the term leads to a host of more Calvinist resources, headed by a link to the website of John MacArthur, a staunch Calvinist publicist if ever there was one.

The problem with this term—I am speaking with some authority now as a non-Calvinist listener—is that it implies (to at least some listeners) that those who disagree with the “Five Points of Calvinism” do not believe in, rely on, or teach the grace of God. Arminians deny such a charge wholeheartedly!

To be certain, I don’t think most Calvinist intend to imply quite that, despite their belief that Arminians misunderstand how grace works. But, intentional or not, their ownership of the term “doctrines of grace” can tend to leave that impression. (I see some others agree with me that the term feels offensive and misleading. See, for example, here and here. Note: I do not intend to affirm all other aspects of these links.)

The problem here is that grace is a much more slippery subject than is often imagined—by most people, not just Calvinists. What exactly is grace? Who gets to define it? Can grace come with any conditions and still be grace? Can it be resisted and still be grace? Can it be potentially withdrawn and still be grace? How is God’s grace different from the grace that humans show? How is it the same? And is our modern conception of grace the same as how ancient Jews—including the apostles–thought of it?

Some of my thoughts here are triggered by an interview with the author of an important new book on grace. I am referring to John Barclay and his 2015 book Paul and the Gift, which has been described as “must reading for all interested in Paul, and in particular in his concept of grace.” That endorsement comes from Ben Witherington—a prominent Arminian NT scholar—and he has interviewed Barclay at length on his blog.

Here are some extended interview excerpts that underscore (a) the complexity of defining grace and (b) the fact that Calvinists most certainly aren’t alone in affirming grace:

JOHN: …Paul is not just a covenantal theologian with an eschatological or a radical social twist. He has a radical, even dangerous, view of God’s grace, but I was struggling to see how to articulate that. I realized that to understand what Paul means by ‘grace’ I had to understand how gifts worked in the ancient world, and the deeper I got into that (which is a fascinating subject in itself) the more I began to see that there are different kinds of ‘grace’ in the ancient world, including the ancient Jewish world…

I have tried to trace… how we have acquired the modern notion of a ‘pure gift’ with ‘no strings attached’, but I think it is increasingly recognized now that this is a very modern (indeed, modern Western) notion and not one that is shared in antiquity (or in most non-Western cultures)…

Paul radicalizes the incongruity of grace (grace given without regard to worth), and his understanding of the Christ-gift as an incongruous gift lies at the heart of his Gentile mission (and his own self-understanding). But this does not mean that God gives expecting nothing in return (what I call non-circular or unilateral grace): in fact Romans 6-8 expressly refutes that notion (of ‘cheap grace’) by saying that believers are ‘under grace’ (Rom 6.14). And on a human level, Paul does not think that gifts carry no obligations: see Romans 15.27 (on the Jerusalem collection as an obliged return gift), for example!…

I discuss Luther and Calvin at some length (after discussion of Augustine, on whom they both draw). I think Luther and Calvin were both absolutely right in emphasizing the incongruity of divine grace (given without regard for our merit or worth), but they also radicalized other aspects of Paul’s theology of gift (in Luther’s case, a clear move towards the gift as a unilateral, one-way movement) that go significantly beyond Paul. I also think that their (in their context necessary) emphasis on grace as the cure for sin, guilt and anxiety, left out another and very important social dimension of Paul’s theology of grace. Since God’s grace has no regard for human criteria of worth, it enables the construction of innovative, counter-cultural communities that sit loose to dominant cultural values… (Source for above quotes, bold added)

JOHN: I think are two questions here: i) should the gift be given without regard to the worth of the recipient and ii) should a gift elicit a return of some sort? The two can run together (a worthy recipient might be one more likely to express gratitude), but they are also seperable [sic]…. We have created notions of ‘altruism’ and ‘disinterest’ that are distinctly modern (making disinterest and interest mutually exclusive). It feels like that is Christian, and there are certainly Christian reasons for risky forms of giving that may not elicit a response, but the core Christian tradition is that even God’s giving wants a response from humans, even if it does not and cannot require it. Does God give to us ‘with no thought of return’? Does not God give to us, without regard to our worth, but lovingly wanting the return that fulfils our human potential, that is the return of thanksgiving (see Romans 1) and faith (see Romans 4)?

Gift [grace] is a phenomenon that has at least these three facets. The six I have identified are: superabundance (the size of character of the gift); singularity (God’s character as giver and nothing-but-giver); priority (the timing of the gift before any initiative from the other side); incongruity (the mismatch between the gift and the worth of the recipient; efficacy (the ability of the gift to achieve the giver’s intentions); and non-circularity (gifts that escape any system of exchange or reciprocity)… The point of this analysis will become clear as the book proceeds. It helps to clarify the differences in the highly influential history of reception of Paul (e.g. the differences between Augustine and Pelagius, or between Luther and Calvin: they all believed in grace, but in significantly different ways)… (Source for above quotes, bold added)

BEN: On p. 575 you define ‘gift’ as follows: “Gift denotes the sphere of voluntary, personal relations, characterized by goodwill in the giving of benefit or favor, and eliciting some form of reciprocal return that is both voluntary and necessary for the continuation of the relationship.” I like this definition a lot, and I notice that the word ‘voluntary’ shows up twice in the definition. I would imagine however, that a uber-Calvinistic theologian (e.g. John Piper) would not be happy about that word in a definition of grace, if by voluntary you mean ‘the recipient of the gift could have done otherwise than respond positively’. In other words, a certain kind of theology of predestination, would say that the ‘gift’ and the relationship were predetermined from before the foundation of the universe…

JOHN: First, note that my definition is a definition of gift (the domain of human relations as analysed by anthropology and traced in human history) not a definition of grace, if by the latter we mean ‘the divine gift of grace, given ultimately and definitively in Christ’. However, it would be problematic for Paul, as for us, if our response to grace could not be considered in any sense ‘voluntary’ (i.e. truly willed). Note how much he emphasises in 2 Corinthians 8-9 that the Corinthians’ gift (‘charis’) to Jerusalem should be voluntary and not an extraction (2 Corinthians 9.5); otherwise in his eyes it would not be a gift. Now, ‘voluntary’ in Paul’s eyes does not mean ‘free of any external influence’ (see how much effort he puts into persuading them to make this voluntary gift!): he does not labour under our illusion that we can and should act as completely autonomous individuals. But he does expect that God’s work in us generates our own willing (Phil 2.12-13), as freed agents who could do otherwise (it is possible, in Paul’s eyes, to fall out of grace).

What you are touching on here is the tendency, in a line of interpretation from Augustine, through Calvin, to Jonathan Edwards, to ‘perfect’ (radicalise or absolutise) the efficacy of grace, to the point where it causes, constrains, or compels our own wills. This is to turn God’s agency/will and our agency/will into a zero sum game: the more of one, the less of the other. But God’s will is not on the same level as ours, working in the same causal nexus… To perfect the efficacy of grace in the way you describe is certainly not necessary, even if it is understandably attractive to some. (Source for above quotes, bold added)

Back to the “uber-Calvinistic theologian” John Piper. (Please understand I am using him only because he is a prominent Calvinist proponent, and I hasten to add that I have been greatly blessed by much of his teaching.) Here is Piper’s explanation of the term “doctrines of grace”:

Probably the most crucial kind of knowledge is the knowledge of what God is like in salvation. That is what the five points of Calvinism are about. Not the power and sovereignty of God in general, but his power and sovereignty in the way he saves people. That is why these points are sometimes called the doctrines of grace. To experience God fully, we need to know not just how he acts in general, but specifically how he saves us — how did he save me? (“What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism“, bold added)

Given this explanation, we can see that the “doctrines of grace” are really the “doctrines of how God saves people.” More accurately, they are the “Calvinist doctrines of how God saves people.”

That phrase is not nearly as snappy for book titles, I know, but it is much more accurate! After all, when we probe the finer points of exactly how God saves people, there are many complexities and mysteries, and there have been many different balances of understanding throughout church history. All orthodox Christian understandings, however, have centered on the reality that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. This is an understanding shared by Arminians as much as by Calvinists.

To deny our need for grace is to deny our need for Christ! Thus withholding the term “doctrines of grace” from Arminians is tantamount to denying that they are Christians at all.

To call one theological system but not the other “the doctrines of grace” is begging the question—assuming the answer before the discussion has begun. Instead, we should be debating this: What are the differences between the Arminian and Calvinist doctrines of grace? And which matches Scripture best?

In sum, it would be helpful if Calvinists would stop insinuating that Arminians are denying our dependence upon grace. Denial of grace is not a classic Arminian stance, just as universal human salvation by grace apart from any human response—at the other end of the spectrum—is not a classic Calvinist belief.


So there you have it: two pet peeves from me, one for Arminians and one for Calvinists. As my dad used to tell me and my brothers, let’s fight nice!

Please add your peaceable thoughts in the comments below. Thank you!


Save page

NIV Zondervan Study Bible (Review and Comparison with ESV Study Bible)

NIV Zondervan Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015). 2,880 p.  Publication announcement from ESV-loving Assistant Editor Andrew David Naselli. Official website with video and free sampler. (Amazon new price: $29.45 hardcover, $14.99 Kindle.)

As someone who rarely uses study Bibles, I may not be the best person to review one. But, since I got a free copy of the new NIV Zondervan Study Bible, here goes! Perhaps you will learn as much as I am learning as I write.

My approach in this review will be to compare the NIVZSB (NIV Zondervan Study Bible) with the ESVSB (ESV Study Bible). I do this for three reasons:

  • The ESVSB is probably the most highly-praised and widely-used scholarly study Bible among evangelicals today.
  • The ESVSB probably holds similar prominence among my readers (though some prefer various KJV study Bibles).
  • The ESVSB is the only other top-tier study Bible I own. (I own it on on Kindle; the NIVZSB I own in hardcover.)

These reasons make the ESVSB a good standard against which to measure the NIVZSB. If the latter reaches the stature of the former, it is certainly a general success.

I’ll divide the rest of this review into three parts:

(You may also jump ahead to my concluding observations.)

nivzondervan-study-bible-e1435947838560

Similarities with the ESV Study Bible

In short, the NIV now has a study Bible that is essentially equivalent in quality to the highly-praised ESV Study Bible. Both are massive works—2752 pp. for the ESVSB and 2880 pp. for the NIVZSB, placing them first and second in length among major evangelical study Bibles. (If you think this review is long…) Both stand firmly within the conservative evangelical tradition. Both are scholarly works with general editors bearing PhDs from the University of Cambridge—Wayne Grudem for the ESVSB and D. A. Carson for the NIVZSB. My incomplete manual comparison of the contributors to the two study Bibles revealed at least 9 people who contributed to both, including major scholars such as John N. Oswalt, Andreas Köstenberger, Robert W. Yarbrough, and T. Desmond Alexander—who wrote the Genesis notes for the ESVSB and then served as an Associate Editor for Old Testament and Biblical Theology for the NIVZSB, writing multiple introductions and articles. (I think I found only one female contributor in my non-exhaustive survey—Karen H. Jobes, a well-known commentary author, writing in the NIVZSB.)

Given their shared evangelical roots, both study Bibles affirm traditional authorship for contested books such as the Pentateuch (Moses with minor editorial shaping), Isaiah (Isaiah), Daniel (Daniel), Matthew (the apostle Matthew), Ephesians (Paul), the Pastoral Epistles (Paul), 2 Peter (the apostle Peter), and 1-3 John (the apostle John). Similarly, Job was probably an historical person (though the speeches reflect literary composition) and Jonah really did ride in a great fish (though his story is told for didactic purposes).

There are even typographical similarities: both volumes print the sacred text in a single column on each page, with cross references along the outside margins, and with commentary in double columns beneath. (The NIVZSB shades the commentary notes to more clearly distinguish them from the biblical text.)

Indeed, these two study Bibles are similar enough that the main factor that should influence your choice between the two is your preference in translations.

I won’t get into the translation debate here, except to say that I use the ESV as my “home” translation and the NIV as one of my favorite comparison translations. A good understanding of the differing goals of each will help you put both to good and appropriate use. And yes, both are suitable for a study Bible.

(For more on translations: See here for my advice about Bible translations and here for more comments about the NIV from me and from the chair of the NIV translation team. See here for a brief explanation of why newer translations such as the NIV and ESV “omit” some verses and see here for a defense of why you can still trust your Bible. By the way, Bill Mounce, who was the New Testament chair of the ESV translation, also works on the NIV translation team, and does not consider the NIV to be “liberal.” Here is one example of where a strength of the NIV helped me understand God’s word better. Here is one passage where I am less convinced they chose well.)

That said, there are some differences between these two study Bibles, and I’d like to focus on those differences next in this review.

ESVstudybible

Differences from the ESV Study Bible

It is a bit difficult to compare a Kindle study Bible with a hardcover study Bible (though I’ve been also using Amazon preview for the ESVSB), but it appears to me that the ESVSB is somewhat stronger than the NIVZSB in these areas:

  • Charts
  • Maps
  • Illustrations
  • Historical information
  • General apologetic or bibliological articles

The ESVSB, for example, has separate articles devoted to archeological topics, biblical languages, biblical doctrine, biblical ethics, and the perspectives that various denominations, religions, and cults bring to Scripture. This infographic from Tim Challies affirms that the ESVSB has more charts and maps (although I think it is somewhat misleading when comparing the number of articles).

A comparison of the introductions to Exodus shows that the one in the ESVSB is slightly longer (six pages to the NIVZSB’s five), with more attention given to the historical reliability of the book and to its literary features. But both cover title, author, date, a content survey, theological themes, and connections to the NT (called “salvation history” in the ESVSB and “biblical-theological trajectories” in the NIVZSB). And both include extensive and exegetically-valid book outlines.

Similarly, the NIVZSB introduction for Galatians is three pages long, while the ESVSB’s covers four pages, providing a little more historical data, a superior map, and more space devoted to charts rather than photographs.

The differences, I stress, are differences of degree; the NIVZSB also includes excellent timelines, maps such as “Assyrian Campaigns Against Israel and Judah,” charts such as “The Eight Signs of John’s Gospel,” and lots of full-color illustrations. Its Exodus introduction includes a helpful chart comparing arguments for early and late dates for the exodus from Egypt. The similarities outweigh the differences, but I give the ESVSB the blue ribbon for visual helps and breadth of topics addressed in articles.

The NIVZSB is stronger in at least one way: its emphasis on biblical theology. This makes sense, given the editors of the two volumes: Wayne Grudem’s most significant authorial effort is his massive and massively popular Systematic Theology, while D. A. Carson is better known for both his commentaries and his editorial work in books such as the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament and the series New Studies in Biblical Theology.

I haven’t read enough of the book introductions and running commentary in either study Bible to get a complete sense on how these differences appear throughout. A partial comparison of the 1 John notes suggests the ESVSB makes a few more systematic theology deductions (for example, on 1 John 2:19 which speaks of those who “went out from us” it says, “this implies that those who are truly saved will never abandon Christ”), while the NIVZSB sticks more closely throughout with what the text may have meant to its first readers (for example, if often refers to the “secessionists” who threatened John’s readers).

In its discussion of doctrinally-controversial passages (see below), the ESVSB is likewise slightly quicker to focus on systematic theology or ethical deductions for readers today. This is not a bad thing, of course (unless you disagree with the deductions!), just a difference in emphasis.

The NIVZSB’s focus on biblical theology is most evident in the twenty-eight articles found before the concordance. Most articles are two or three pages long; together they cover sixty-six pages. Since these articles are the most unique part of this study Bible, I will list them here, with their authors:

The Story of the Bible: How the Good News About Jesus Is Central – Timothy Keller
The Bible and Theology – D. A. Carson
A Biblical-Theological Overview of the Bible – D. A. Carson
The Glory of God – James M. Hamilton Jr.
Creation – Henri A. G. Blocher
Sin – Kevin DeYoung
Covenant – Paul R. Williamson
Law – T. D. Alexander
Temple – T. D. Alexander
Priest – Dana M. Harris
Sacrifice – Jay A. Sklar
Exile and Exodus – Thomas Richard Wood
The Kingdom of God – T. D. Alexander
Sonship – D. A. Carson
The City of God – T. D. Alexander
Prophets and Prophecy – Sam Storms
Death and Resurrection – Philip S. Johnston
People of God – Moisés Silva
Wisdom – Daniel J. Estes
Holiness – Andrew David Naselli
Justice – Brian S. Rosner
Wrath – Christopher W. Morgan
Love and Grace – Graham A. Cole
The Gospel – Greg D. Gilbert
Worship – David G. Peterson
Mission – Andreas J. Köstenberger
Shalom – Timothy Keller
The Consummation – Douglas J. Moo

Carson describes the goal of these articles in the Editor’s Preface:

We have tried to highlight the way various themes develop within the Bible across time… taking us to their climax in the book of Revelation… In this way we hope to encourage readers of the Bible to spot these themes for themselves as they read their Bibles, becoming adept at tracing them throughout the Scriptures. Such biblical theology enables readers to follow the Bible’s themes in the terms and categories that the Bible itself uses. (p. xxiii)

Some of these categories (see the article titles above) mirror categories common to systematic theology, such as harmartiology (study of sin) or eschatology (study of the end times).  Others cover similar ground but focus more on how themes unfold across time and different covenants, such as “People of God” versus ecclesiology (study of the church). Still others are unlikely to receive any meaningful treatment in traditional systematic theologies, such as “Exile and Exodus.” (And of course, some traditional systematic theology topics such as angelology are missing here.)

While I disagree with minor points in some of these articles, I find myself agreeing with a much higher percentage of what is said here than with what is said in most systematic theologies. That is the benefit of staying closer to the language of Scripture itself. Most of these articles are very useful and some (such as Keller’s opening one) are even moving. I have a niggling question about the place of such essays in a study Bible (how many readers will really find and benefit from this content in their specific moments of exegetical need?), but reading them can certainly make one a better reader of Scripture.

In sum, though the ESVSB and the NIVZSB have similar depth and quality of study notes throughout, the ESVSB has the edge regarding visual helps and breadth of topics in its extra articles, and the NIVZSB has the edge if you wish to think in the patterns of biblical theology.

bible battle eatliver

Handling of Controversial Scriptures

The most important factor in a study Bible is how it interprets the sacred text. A study Bible, like a preacher, can draw out the truth and beauty of God’s word with humility and boldness, or else it can hide the text behind an arrogant cloud of human opinions and qualifications. So, how well does the NIVZSB do? And how does it stack up against the ESVSB?

The subtitle of the NIVZSB is Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message. I think it lives up to this title. On the central matters of the gospel, this study Bible is solid. For example, read the following excerpts from Douglas Moo’s study notes on Romans. (Moo is, significantly, both the head of the NIV translation team and Associate Editor of New Testament and Biblical Theology for the NIVSB.) First, from a study note on Romans 3:24:

“Grace” is a thread that runs throughout Romans. The display of God’s grace in the gospel is rooted in the character of God himself. As 4:4-5 makes clear, no human can ever make a claim on God because of anything they have done (11:5-6). A holy God can never be indebted to his creatures. Whatever he gives us, therefore, he gives “freely” and without compulsion (4:16). Not only is grace needed at the beginning of the Christian life, but believers “stand” in grace (5:2): we live in the realm in which grace “reign[s]” (5:21; see 5:15, 17, 20). (p. 2297)

If Moo stopped right there, I would fault him for teaching a wonderful half-truth. But this is the very next sentence:

That reign of grace, Paul hastens to clarify, does not absolve us of the need to live righteously before God; rather, it gives us the power to do so (6:1, 14-15, 17). (p. 2297)

Later, commenting on Romans 6:19, Moo speaks even more forcefully:

God himself sanctifies all those who believe in Jesus: they become “holy,” or “saints,” members of God’s own people (e.g., 1:7). But sanctification is also a process of becoming increasingly obedient to the will of God (1 Thess 4:3); believers need to engage in this lifelong pursuit of holiness if they expect to enjoy eternal life (v. 22; see Heb 12:14: “without holiness no one will see the Lord”). (p. 2303)

So the NIVZSB promotes the core gospel message well, along with the necessary human response to God’s grace. And, though it is generally Calvinistic throughout, it does not emphasize this interpretive lens in a way that overshadows the biblical message itself. Well done.

But how does the NIVZSB handle more controversial passages—texts which theologically conservative Christians sometimes disagree about? And how does it compare to the ESVSB in its handling of these texts?

Here are some examples for your review, arranged topically:

Creation: These study Bibles hold similar positions on Genesis 1-2: (1) The ESVSB presents five readings that “faithful interpreters” offer regarding the days of creation (“calendar day,” “day-age,” “analogical days,” “literary framework,” and “gap theory”) but refrains from assessing them. The NIVZSB says the mention of “days” “emphasizes the logical development of God’s creation more than it pinpoints the chronological development” (p. 20).  (2) The ESVSB says the word “kinds” does not correspond to our modern term “species” but could refer to a “more general taxonomic group.” The NIVZSB suggests (based on Ezek. 47:10) that “kinds” “does not emphasize limitation of each life form to its specific species but emphasizes the diversity of each general life form” (p. 20). (3) Both affirm that Adam and Eve were historical persons. There are no surprises here for either study Bible; both are taking currently-accepted “conservative” positions on creation, like it or not.

The Flood and Miracles: Both agree that the flood (Genesis 6-8) was “a real event” (ESVSB). The NIVZSB says that “a natural reading suggests a global flood, and some find this in 2 Pet 2:5; 3:6. The reference [‘all the high mountains… were covered’] may also imply a regional flood (nevertheless possessing tremendous severity) with impact affecting the whole human race, who may have remained in one area (Gen 11:1-9). In 41:57, ‘all the world’ refers to the eastern Mediterranean lands, so in chs. 6-8 the flood may have covered only the part of the earth where people lived.” At 6:15 we read, “estimates suggest that all the land animals could be accommodated in the ark with more than half of it remaining for other uses” (p. 37). The ESVSB makes no mention of the ark’s size, but likewise posits that “it is possible that the flood, while universal from [the] viewpoint [of ancient people], did not cover the entire globe.”

It is important to note, given this uncertainty about the extent of the flood, that the editors of the NIVZSB (and ESVSB) are not motivated by an anti-supernatural, anti-miraculous bias. For example, the NIVZSB says this of the Red (or “Reed”) Sea: “Whatever its exact location, it was a significant body of water—large (and deep) enough to drown the Egyptian army” (p. 136). It speaks even more clearly at Exodus 14: “As with the series of wonders in Egypt, naturalistic explanations of this event inevitably undermine its theological significance. Whatever ‘natural’ elements the Lord may have employed (as ‘a strong east wind’ blowing all night might imply), the timing of this phenomenon, as well as its depiction both here and elsewhere…, suggests that it was a supernatural display of the Lord’s ‘mighty hand’ (14:31). As such, this was not a purely natural event, however unusual. Rather, God’s ability to control this large body of water, like later similar events (e.g., Josh 3:14-17; 2Kgs 2:8,14), demonstrates his lordship over creation. Such lordship is likewise reflected when Jesus calmed the storm and demonstrated that ‘even the winds and the water… obey him’ (Luke 8:25)” (pp. 143-44).

Divorce and Remarriage: Both study Bibles hold similar positions on Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-12, underscoring that “Jesus is reaffirming God’s original intention that marriage be permanent and lifelong” (NIVZSB, p. 1970). They teach that both divorce and remarriage are “possible but never ideal” (NIVZSB, p. 1969) in cases where one marriage partner engages in “sexual immorality” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9, both NIV and ESV). It seems that the NIVZSB may interpret “sexual immorality” slightly more broadly, saying that the Greek term “porneia [is] the broadest term for sexual sin. It refers to sexual relations with any other person besides one’s monogamous heterosexual spouse” (p. 1939). The ESVSB, rather than speaking of “sexual relations,” specifies “sexual intercourse,” possibly a narrower term, giving as examples adultery, prostitution, incest, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality.

On the other hand, the NIVZSB takes a more rigid stance on 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. On verse 11 it notes, “There are only two options for a divorced woman: (1) remain unmarried or (2) reconcile with her husband.” It acknowledges regarding verse 15 (“but if the unbeliever leaves… the brother or sister is not bound in such circumstances”) that “it is often suggested that this allows a deserted Christian spouse to remarry” but states that “this interpretation is not plausible,” listing four reasons. The ESVSB, while acknowledging this interpretation as possible, says that “the majority of interpreters now think that the phrase also implies the freedom to obtain a legal divorce (if that has not already happened) and the freedom to marry someone else.”

An additional difference between these two Bibles on this topic is that the ESVSB contains a lengthy discussion about divorce and remarriage in an essay called “Biblical Ethics: An Overview.” Here it attempts to synthesize the full biblical evidence—something the NIVZSB never does.

Homosexuality: Both study Bibles state clearly that homosexual relations are sinful. An NIVZSB comment on Romans 1:26-27 succinctly states that “in making humans [sic!] beings male and female…, God manifests his intention for human sexual relations” (p. 2293). (See also the specification about “heterosexual spouse” in the note on Matthew 5 above, as well as this article which shows that the updated NIV aims to speak even more clearly against homosexuality than the 1984 edition did.)

Gender Roles: It will surprise some readers to learn that the NIVZSB takes nearly the same stance on gender roles as the ESVSB does. If the NIV has a liberal agenda of actively undermining gender difference, as some claim (including some ESV promoters), then the editors of this study Bible missed the memo. I will trace the evidence in some detail, since this topic is of special concern to those uncertain about the NIV.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 both study Bibles agree that the passage is discussing husbands and wives, not men and women generally; both assume Paul is advocating a veil, not merely hair; both assert that “a wife’s respect for her husband… is expressed in different ways in different cultures” (NIVZSB, p. 2346); and both agree that “creational differences between men and women, husbands and wives… continue to have validity  since they come from God” (NIVZSB, ibid.). The study Bibles do differ in presentation: The ESVSB lists other interpretive possibilities besides a veil for what was to cover a woman’s head; it suggest modern cultural equivalents for a veil; and it uses the language of “headship” and “authority” to describe leadership role of husbands. The NIVZSB, in contrast, uses the equivalent but less embattled language of “preeminent status.”

In Ephesians 5:21-33, both study Bibles agree that “submitting to one another” (v. 21) does not advocate an egalitarian mutual submission but rather introduces the wife’s responsibility to submit to her husband (the NIVZSB calls this interpretation “more likely,” p. 2408). While the NIVZSB notes that “submit” is “frequently synonymous with ‘obey,'” it clarifies that “submission to another human is conditioned on the submission that one ultimately owes to God (p. 2408); the ESVSB that clarifies that “the submission of wives is not like the obedience children owe parents.” The NIVZSB says that “submission recognizes a divinely ordered set of relationships” (p. 2408) and the ESVSB says that “just as Christ’s position as head of the church and its Savior does not vary from culture to culture, neither does the headship of a husband in relation to his wife and her duty to submit to her husband” (bold in original). Both affirm that the Greek word translated “head” here and in 1 Corinthians “generally implies authority” (NIVZSB, p. 2401), though the ESVSB presents this assertion more strongly and with more evidence.

Both study Bibles agree that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 “Paul is not issuing a general command for women to be silent” (NIVZSB, p. 2353, citing 1 Cor. 11). Rather, “Paul is likely forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies… since such an activity would subvert male headship” (ESVSB). The NIVZSB does seem to read the prohibition a little more narrowly, as directed to wives rather than women in general, but cites valid textual evidence for this interpretation: “Paul is addressing married women (v. 35) who might want to be involved in the evaluation of their husband’s prophecy or who disrupt the service by speaking with their husbands” (p. 2353). (Incidentally, I’ve wondered why the ESV translates γυνὴ as “wife” in 1 Corinthians 11 but as “woman” here. The NET Bible notes suggest that there should be consistency, and that “in passages governing conduct in church meetings like this [cf. 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1Tim 2:9-15] the general meaning ‘women’ is more likely”—thus agreeing with the NIV text but not the NIVZSB notes!)

Similarly, both study Bibles interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to be giving instruction only for the gathered church setting. The NIVZSB presents “three general approaches” to these verses: (1) Paul is patriarchal and wrong; (2) Our understandings or circumstances are different from Paul’s, so his once-valid teaching no longer applies; (3) “Most Christians through almost all of church history, have understood Paul’s teaching to be that in general men are called to certain leadership responsibilities in the church that women under most circumstances are not.” It then specifies that “the following study notes are most consistent with view 3” (p. 2462). Later it clarifies that women were allowed to pray and prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5), that “quiet” applies to men as well as women in some circumstances (1 Tim. 2:2), that “it seems reasonable to assume women sang (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Jas 5:13),” but that “there are no clear examples in the NT of women serving as overseers (3:1) in apostolic churches,” a fact consistent with “the universal policy in early Christian generations and beyond” (ibid.). The ESVSB agrees, arguing even more strongly. The ESVSB argues that “teach” and “exercise authority” are “two different activities” (meaning that all teaching is prohibited, not just “authoritative teaching”). The NIVZSB, in contrast, says “Paul is not thinking of two separate, unrelated activities.” Thus they both agree that Paul is referring to the role of overseers, who exercise authority as they teach, while the ESVSB leaves the prohibition broader, excluding women from any act of teaching “Scripture and/or Christian doctrine to men in church.” Thus both study Bibles reserve the overseer (or elder/pastor) role for men.

And both Bibles are uncertain regarding the role of deacon. In 1 Timothy 3:11 the ESVSB leans toward women as either “deacons or assistants” (contra the ESV text which sees them as deacon’s wives), while the NIVZSB suggests “it is less likely that v. 11 refers to a separate order of women deacons” (p. 2464). In Romans 16:1, however, the study Bibles exchange stances: the ESVSB says “scholars debate” whether Phoebe is a “servant” or a “deacon,” while the NIVZSB concludes that since she is called “a diakonos ‘of the church,'” this “suggests that she holds some kind of official position” (p. 2321).

In all the gender texts I’ve surveyed thus far, the NIVZSB and ESVSB adopt nearly the same position—gender role difference in marriage and church are timeless principles, men are called to authoritative and loving leadership in home and church while women are called to submit, and women may not be overseers but may perhaps be (non-teaching) deacons. The NIVZSB does apparently leave the door open for women to teach men in non-authoritative positions in the church, but otherwise the differences between the study Bibles are differences of tone more than position, with the ESVSB giving a more rigorous defense of the position shared by both.

The differences between how the ESVSB and the NIVZSB approach gender roles may perhaps be seen most strongly in the study notes on Genesis 1-3. Here the ESVSB notes that while the image of God applies to both males and females (Gen. 1:27), the fact that the command to care for the garden (Gen. 2:15-16) was given to Adam “implies that God gave ‘the man’ a leadership role… a role that is also related to the leadership responsibility of Adam for Eve as his wife.” It specifies that God’s words “I will make him can also be translated ‘I will make for him'” (Gen. 2:18, bold in original), thus explaining Paul’s statement that God made woman for the man, and not the other way around (1 Cor. 11:9). It clarifies that “‘fit for him’… is not the same as ‘like him’: a wife is not her husband’s clone but complements him.” It says Adam’s taking of the fruit (Gen. 3:6) was “a failure to carry out his divinely ordered responsibility” to guard and keep the woman. It notes that God confronts Adam first (Gen. 3:9), thus “holding him primarily responsible for what happened, as the one who is the representative (or ‘head’) of the husband-and-wife relationship.” It describes how “the leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall… [were] deeply damaged and distorted by sin” (Gen. 3:16). In other words, the ESVSB reads Genesis 1-3 with an eye open for every detail that supports traditional gender roles.

The NIVZSB does not disagree with any of these ESVSB comments. (For example, it certainly does not suggest that gender role difference is a result of the fall.) But the only one it actually states (by implication) is the first one: that “the whole human race” bear God’s image, not merely males (p. 27). It does note that “the man is addressed first” by God, but does not draw any theological deductions from that bare observation. When it describes the results of the fall on husband-wife relationships, it simply frames it as “a breakdown in the original harmonious relationship between the man and the woman,” without any word of the gender roles that initially helped frame that harmony (p. 31). Its notes are focused primarily on other matters.

Similarly, at Galatians 3:28 only the ESVSB clarifies that “there is no male or female does not imply that there are no distinctions in how these groups should act” (bold in original); the NIVZSB simply vaguely states that “distinctions based on… gender characterize life in the old age” (p. 2389).

In summary, on gender roles these two study Bibles take nearly the same positions. Those who want a somewhat more rigorous defense of traditional gender role difference will probably prefer the ESVSB, but find little to fault in the NIVZSB.

Nonresistance and Relationship to Government: On Matthew 5:38-48 the NIVZSB says that “Jesus is prohibiting retaliation for wrongs experienced.” It explains that a slap on the cheek is “a common Jewish insult by a superior to a subordinate, not an aggressor’s blow.” (p. 1939). This brief interpretation leaves the door open for Christians to use force, even deadly force, in other circumstances, though it may be significant that the NIVZSB does not explicitly state this. The ESVSB, on the other hand, presents this interpretive position much more clearly: “Jesus is not prohibiting the use of force by governments, police, or soldiers when combating evil… One should not return an insulting slap, which would lead to escalating violence. In the case of a more serious assault, Jesus’ words should not be taken to prohibit self-defense…, for often a failure to resist a violent attack leads to even more serious abuse.”

At 1 Thessalonians 5:15 the NIVZSB makes a brief mention of “the principle of non-retaliation” (p. 2446) and at Romans 12:14-21 it rather softly says that “believers should feel no compulsion to right all wrongs themselves” (p. 2316). On the latter passage the ESVSB, in contrast, claims that “overcoming evil with good… may sometimes also include the ‘good’ (13:4) of the civil government stopping evil through the use of superior force (military or police), as Paul explains in 13:3-4″ (bold in original). (This is an unsubstantiated interpretation on two counts: it blurs the “you” of chapter 12 with the “they” of chapter 13, which doesn’t command Christians to engage in government activity, and it leaps from the police action described in chapter 13 to also affirm military action.) Thus, while neither study Bible affirms anything near an Anabaptist understanding of non-resistance, the ESVSB more strongly and repeatedly disagrees with it.

At Romans 13:1-7 the NIVZSB says that “believers must recognize the place of government in God’s providential ordering of the world.” It correctly makes no mention of military action, saying that “government has the right to use force to punish wrongdoing.” Somewhat surprisingly, given the context, it adds this: “whether this force includes capital punishment is debated” (p. 2316). The ESVSB speaks of the “responsibility” rather than “right” of the government to punish evil—a stronger word. Similarly, it says “the reference to the sword most likely refers to the penalty of capital punishment.” And, consistent with its comments on Matthew, it says that “even though Christians must not take personal revenge…, it is right for them to turn punishment over to the civil authorities.”

Spiritual Gifts: I haven’t found any clear statement where the NIVZSB strongly affirms whether or not the “miraculous” spiritual gifts continue to this day. This is remarkable, given that Sam Storms, a strong continuationist, was chosen to author an essay on “Prophets and Prophecy.” In this article he gives reasons why some say “yeah” and some “nay,” but only vaguely hints at his own position by some present-tense references to prophecy in the remainder of his essay. A note at Acts 2:4 says that “the Spirit comes in a variety of ways, sometimes accompanied by speaking in tongues… and sometimes not” (p. 2218). The notes on 1 Corinthians 12 seem designed to studiously avoid any controversial questions of present-day application, sticking with general statements like “Christians have different gifts, no one has all gifts, and no gift has been given to all” (p. 2349). The ESVSB is more forthright but adopts a similar stance in its comments on this chapter: “Bible-believing Christians disagree as to whether the gift of tongues ceased after the apostolic age of the early church, or whether tongues is a spiritual gift that should continue to be practiced today. In either case, there is no indication that speaking in tongues is a normative requirement that all Christians must experience.” Clearly, both Bibles are aiming to avoid a fight over this volatile topic.

Foreknowledge, Predestination, Election: At Romans 8:29-30 the NIVZSB gives two possible explanations for God’s foreknowledge: “Perhaps ‘knew ahead of time’…: God ‘foreknew’ who would believe in him and so predestined them. But ‘know’ probably has the biblical sense of ‘enter into relationship with’…: God chose to initiate a relationship with people ‘before the creation of the world’… and on that basis ‘predestined’ them” (p. 2307). The ESVSB only presents the second option, and emphasizes that “predestined” means “predetermined” and that God’s calling is “effective,” not merely an invitation.

The NIVZSB says Romans 9:6-29 could refer to national election, but “more likely” refers to “personal election.” While “Paul does not intend to deny human responsibility… God’s sovereignty over all things, including salvation and eternal judgment, is a foundational theme of the Bible” (p. 2309-10). The ESVSB is less equivocal: “Christians can be assured, therefore, that God’s promise will be fulfilled because it depends solely upon his will”; and God “remains just in not choosing everyone” for salvation.

At Ephesians 1:3-5 the NIVZSB speaks strongly: “Since this divine election of believers  occurred ‘before the creation of the world’ (v. 4), it is based solely on God’s gracious decision and not on any human merit.” A list of over a dozen references follows, along with a clarification that “predestined” means “predetermined” (pp. 2399-2400). The ESVSB strongly agrees, adding the idea that God’s will is “inexorable” (unstoppable).

There are too many verses related to this topic to survey them properly, but here are a few more: The NIVZSB makes no mention of the “all” in Titus 2:11, while the ESVSB says “it means… that salvation has been offered to all people (including all ethnic groups), not just to some.” The NIVZSB says that the “anyone” in 2 Peter 3:9 means “either (1) all humans without exception or (2) Peter’s readers, Christians… whom the false teachers influenced. If the first, then some view this as an example of what God desires as distinct from what God decrees” (p. 2556). Here a ESVSB note directs us to 1 Timothy 2:4, where it has a lengthy note that describes both Arminian and Calvinist interpretations without taking sides (surprise!), ending thus: “However one understands the extent of the atonement, this passage clearly teaches the free and universal offer of salvation to every single human being; ‘desires’ shows that this offer is a bona fide expression of God’s good will.” On this Timothy verse the NIVZSB suggests that “all people” “may mean ‘all kinds of people'” and that “what God ‘wants’ may be hindered by lack of human faith.” This last statement opens the door to non-Calvinistic interpretations (but does not demand them), as does the NIVZSB note on 1 John 2:2. This note suggests that “perhaps we may say Jesus’ death was sufficient to deal with the sins of the whole world, but it becomes effective only when people believe.” Similarly, the ESVSB here says that “Jesus’ sacrifice is offered and made available to everyone in ‘the whole world.'”

This extremely limited survey suggests that the NIVZSB and the ESVSB are both similarly Calvinistic regarding God’s choice and offer of salvation, but with occasional surprising flexibility.

Eternal Security: At Hebrews 6:4-6 the NIVZSB notes the “great difficulties for interpretation,” describes several common interpretations, and finally concludes that “those who do not hold on to faith in Christ show that their experience was superficial rather than genuine” (p. 2503). The ESVSB directs us to a note at Hebrews 3:14, which says “Scripture is clear… that true believers cannot lose their salvation.” On this verse the NIVZSB similarly asserts that “holding firmly to faith in God… despite day-by-day struggles does not qualify us for this status [of sharing in Christ] now or in the future; it reflects a status already gained. So this verse is not so much exhorting or admonishing (i.e., ‘we must endure in faith or we will not share in Christ’) as it is defining (i.e., ‘those who have come to share in Christ are the ones who will endure in faith’)” (p. 2499). Again, at Hebrews 7:25 the NIVZSB argues that the fact that Jesus “always lives to intercede for” believers “precludes their turning back” (p. 2507).

But such statements are relatively rare in the NIVZSB. At 1 John 2:19 the NIVZSB makes no clear theological deductions, while the ESVSB states that “this implies that those who are truly saved will never abandon Christ.” The ESVSB makes similar statements at John 6:40, John 10:28, 2Peter 1:10, and Jude 1:2—all places where the NIVZSB makes no clear assertions about whether believers can ever lose their salvation.

The Christian’s Struggle with Sin: At Romans 7:7-12 the NIVZSB suggests that Paul is describing his pre-Christian state, but also viewing “his solidarity” with both Adam and Israel. At Romans 7:13-25, it notes two common interpretations: Paul may be describing (1) his current experience as a Christian, or (2) his past experience as a Jew (again, in solidarity with Adam and Israel). No preference is given. The ESVSB presents two similar interpretations: “(1) unregenerate people who try to keep the law, or (2) believers who, despite being regenerated, find themselves still beset by sinful desires.” It discusses these options at some length, stating that “although good arguments are given by both sides, the most widely held view—beginning especially with Augustine and reaffirmed in the Reformation—is that Paul’s primary reference is to believers.” (For what it’s worth, I disagree quite strongly with the Augustinian/Reformational/ESVSB reading of this passage.)

Sabbath and Lord’s Day: These study Bibles take a similar stance on this topic. At Exodus 20:8-11 the ESVSB makes no Christian application, while the NIVZSB mentions that the Sabbath “anticipates the experience of rest through faith in Christ” (p. 155). At Colossians 2:16-17 the ESVSB says “it is debated whether the Sabbaths in question included the regular seventh-day rest of the fourth commandment, or were only the special Sabbaths of the Jewish festal calendar” while the NIVZSB does not discuss Sabbaths. At Galatians 4:10 the ESVSB repeats its uncertainty with the addition that some “believe that the weekly Sabbath command is not temporary but goes back to God’s pattern in creation.” The NIVZSB whispers (with dramatically different tone than Paul!) that “treating certain times as more sacred than others… is not an essential feature of Christian faith” (p. 2390). At Romans 14:5 the ESVSB declares that “unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1-17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the ‘ceremonial laws’ of the Mosaic covenant…, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers.” The NIVZSB simply affirms that the Sabbath is “probably” among the days Paul is describing as optional (p. 2318).

Regarding the Lord’s Day, at 1 Corinthians 16:2 the ESVSB describes that Christians gathered for worship on Sunday, not Saturday, while the NIVZSB adds that the Lord’s Day also refers to the first day of the week and that “Christian teachers at the end of the first century confirm the practice of Christians meeting on Sundays” (p. 2256). At Revelation 1:10 the ESVSB confirms the Lord’s Day/Sunday equation and the NIVZSB again looks to history, saying that “the majority of Christ’s followers see this passage as evidence that already in the first century this day was set aside for worship and fellowship” (p. 2589).

Thus, unlike the ESVSB, the NIVZSB apparently never suggests the Sabbath command may still apply. However, it seems a little more open to seeing Sunday worship as being normative. (For my understanding of this topic—which is a good test case for how Christians read the OT—see here.)

Israel and the Church: The NIVZSB is inconsistent on this topic. The “Exile and Exodus” article presents one perspective strongly: “As the only perfectly obedient Israelite (Heb 4:15; 5:8)—a faithful remnant of one—Jesus (not the unbelieving nation) is the sole heir of all of the covenantal promises made to Abraham, Israel, and David (Heb 1:2; cf. Matt 21:38; 28:18; Acts 2:29-33). Life everlasting, a land flowing with milk and honey, a posterity as numerous as the stars, a perpetual reign over all creation, and uninhibited access to the Father’s presence all belong exclusively to him. Others could join this new exodus and become joint heirs with Abraham’s ‘seed’ (Gal 3:16-20, 29), but not without embracing him as their Savior and Messiah (Acts 3:22-26; Rom 8:17; Gal 3:26-4:7; Eph 2:11-13; 3:6)” (p. 2661). (Here I say a hearty Amen!) Similarly, the article “People of God” says that “by choosing 12 apostles (Luke 6:13), Jesus reconstitutes the people of God. But this newly formed nation is no longer identified with a political entity or an ethnic group… Abraham’s true descendants, to whom God made the promise, consist of those who follow in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith” (p. 2673).

Again, a note at 1 Peter 1:1 says that Peter “implicitly claims that the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel, made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ” (p. 2539). (For other affirmations of this position, see also Jer. 30:3, p. 1524; Jer. 33:22, p. 1534; Ez. 40-48, p. 1598; James 1:1, p. 2524.)

On the other hand, the article “Mission” says that Paul “taught that a future remains for ethnic Israel in God’s redemptive purposes (Rom 9-11)” (p. 2692).  In the introduction to Revelation, one of the multiple interpretive approaches that is described (without criticism) asserts that “after the tribulation, God will fulfill his promises to bless Israel during a one-thousand-year period that does not directly pertain to the church” (p. 2584). (For other passages that present this kind of interpretation as at least one legitimate possibility, see also Jer. 31:33, p. 1530; Ez. 40:1, p. 1672; Amos 9:11, p. 1783; Rev. 11:1, p. 2604; Rev. 20:9, p. 2622.)

The ESVSB shows similar diversity. On 1 Peter 1:1 it is even stronger than the NIVZSB: “Peter explicitly [rather than ‘implicitly’] teaches that the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel.” (For a similar strong statement see James 1:1. ) However, at other places the ESVSB presents a future role for an ethnic Israel as a legitimate interpretative approach. For example, under “Millennial Views” in the introduction to Revelation, it says “many premillennialists, …believe that OT prophecies of Israel’s restoration to fidelity and to political and material blessedness will be fulfilled in this millennial kingdom.” (See also Jer. 31:31-34; Amos 9:15; Ez. 40:1-48:35; Rev. 11:1-2.)

Both study Bibles refrain from taking a position at Galatians 6:16 as to whether “Israel of God” refers to the whole church or to Jews only. But at Romans 11:26 they differ slightly, in a way that reflects where they each most often land on this topic. The NIVZSB simply lists interpretive options: “all Israel” could refer to (1) the church, both Jew and Gentile, (2) elect Jews throughout history, or (3) a significant number of Jews at the end of history. The ESVSB describes the same three options, but then concludes that the third view “seems most likely.” (For what it is worth, I am convinced the second view fits the evidence best.)

The Olivet Discourse: The NIVZSB sees Matthew 24:4-28 as describing “what must happen in the generation in which [Jesus] and his disciples are living” (p. 1982). Thus evidence is given for how all the prophecies in this section (including the gospel being preached in the whole world and the great tribulation) were fulfilled prior to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. Matthew 24:29-51, we are told, “describe[s] the return of Christ” (p. 1983). The ESVSB, in contrast, says that “the near event (the destruction of Jerusalem) serves as a symbol and foreshadowing of the more distant event (the second coming).” While both prophetic horizons are mentioned in the ongoing notes, verses 4 to 31 are primarily interpreted as providing “a generally chronological description of events preceding Christ’s return,” and some prophecies (including the great tribulation!) are specifically stated as not having been fulfilled prior to AD 70.

This difference, perhaps coincidentally, is consistent with how the NIVZSB is usually a little more focused on what the text meant to its original audience while the ESVSB spends a little more time elaborating what the text might mean for Christians today. (For what it is worth, I think the NIVZSB is definitely right to focus on an AD 70 fulfilment in the early part of the chapter, while the ESVSB may also be right to read that event as a foreshadowing of Christ’s final return.)

I think most conservative Anabaptists will find the NIVZSB slightly more agreeable on the topics of nonresistance and eternal security, while slightly preferring the ESVSB on gender roles. Most won’t be particularly happy with either study Bible on the topics of creation, divorce and remarriage, or predestination, and they will be as divided among themselves as both study Bibles are internally on the topic of Israel and the church. (Please note that I am not weighing doctrinal accuracy here, just drawing observations about doctrinal allegiances.)

(Bibliographic note: I have not provided ESVSB page citations in this review because I am focusing on the NIVZSB, I have only a Kindle ESVSB, and I wanted to reduce clutter. But most quotes can easily be traced by looking at the relevant Bible references or—in just a few cases—book introductions.)

Concluding Observations

My general sense is that the NIVZSB is slightly more careful than the ESVSB to avoid offending its readers—or, to state things more positively, that it is aiming to please a slightly larger readership.

On the one hand it is equally careful to adhere to the basic evangelical commitments (things such as traditional authorship and the historical reliability of Scripture), while also feeling equally free to adopt recent approaches to synthesizing the Bible and science (no firm stance on the days of Genesis or the question of evolution).

On the other hand, it seems slower to affirm some of the more fundamentalist ideas of evangelicalism (things such as capital punishment or a special plan for the future of ethnic Israel), it feels slightly more cautious as it affirms some points of evangelical doctrinal dispute (inability of true believers to fall from the faith, distinct gender roles in the church), and it is sometimes slower to pick sides at all regarding what the text means for today (the Christian and the military).

These tentative observations also seem to fit with the institutional affiliations of the study Bible contributors. For example, the ESVSB has more contributors affiliated with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Covenant Theological Seminary—both Reformed schools. But the NIVZSB has more contributors affiliated with Wheaton College, Denver Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School—schools that are more broadly evangelical in their affirmations and allegiances. (Many more schools are represented in both Bibles, including many that I am poorly equipped to place theologically.)

This infographic from Tim Challies describes the ESVSB as “Reformed” and the NIZVSB as “conservative evangelical.” While there is much overlap between those labels, I think they are generally correct. Of course, these labels also match the theological commitments of the publishers of each Bible: Crossway for the ESVSB and Zondervan for the NIVZSB. That said, D. A. Carson, general editor of the NIVZSB, is firmly and famously Reformed, and the two study Bibles are quite similar on this point.

The aim of the NIVZSB to please a large readership fits well with the NIV’s goals and market niche as a translation, since it is the fastest-selling—though not most widely-read—translation in America. (This despite the fact that a relative minority have loudly protested the NIV!)

There may be some irony in the fact that the translation which leaves a few more of the rough edges of Scripture uninterpreted (ESV) has a study Bible which is slightly more interpretative and firm in its theological positions, while the translation which tends to do a little more thought-for-thought interpreting (NIV) has a study Bible which sticks a little closer to the biblical text, making slightly fewer strong theological affirmations.

But such differences are comparatively minor when set within the widely diverse translations and study Bibles currently on the market. Both the NIVZSB and the ESVSB are solidly conservative evangelical and among the very best in their class. I am very happy to recommend both for your judicious use.

The NIVZSB is about as good as a study Bible gets.
I give it 4-1/2 out of 5 stars.


If you’ve read this far, congratulations!

Hopefully this review has given you a better sense of the strengths and theological perspectives of two of the most important study Bibles available today. If you own either one and think I’ve misrepresented something, please let me know.

Will I use a study Bible more often now that I’ve examined a couple more closely? I don’t know. On the one hand, there are still benefits to a simple, clutter-free reading Bible. And when I want to do serious study, I have much more detailed commentaries on my shelves and on my Kindle. That said, a good study Bible is certainly one way to carry a mini library of scholarly study helps. Yet the NIVZSB is a bit too bulky for me to want to carry it to church regularly. (I tried it yesterday!) Since it is my only print NIV2011, I will probably use it from time to time at home. At minimum, I do plan to finish reading the remaining biblical theology essays. They are good!

Now it’s your turn. Do you use a study Bible? Which one? Why? Have you examined its theological commitments closely? Based on this review, would you rather own an ESVSB or an NIVZSB? Why? Share your perspectives in the comments below.


Disclosures: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers <http://booklookbloggers.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.


Save page

10 Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Bible Verses (Part 2)

Finally, brothers and sisters… let me share more surprises about 10 of 2014’s most popular Bible verses. (See here for the first 3 surprises and background data for this post.)

I’ll summarize the first three surprises and continue:

  1. Bible reading is growing fastest in unlikely places, including Israel, South Sudan, the Republic of Suriname, Iraq, and Macedonia.
  2. “World” in Romans 12:2 might better be translated “age.”
  3. “Finally” in Philippians 4:8 doesn’t necessarily indicate Paul plans to quit soon.
  4. Despite Philippians 4:6 (“Do not be anxious about anything”), not all “anxiety” is wrong. A fairly literal translation of this command would read, “For nothing be anxious.” Yet another form of this same verb “be anxious” (μεριμνάω) is used earlier in the same letter in a positive way: “I have no one like [Timothy], who will be genuinely concerned [μεριμνήσει] for your welfare” (Phil. 2:20). This is high praise of Timothy: he was genuinely “anxious” about the Philippian believers!
    Paul uses the same verb to tell the Corinthians of God’s purpose for the Church body: “that the members may have the same care [μεριμνῶσιν] for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Earlier in that letter he uses related words to say both positive and negative things about “anxiety” (1 Cor. 7:32-35). First he seems to be opposed to all anxiety: “I want you to be free from anxieties.” Then he seems to affirm a certain kind of anxiety: “The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” Next he clearly dislikes another kind: “But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife.” Then he clarifies his real point: “his [the married man’s] interests are divided… I say this… to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.”
    Jesus, using the same verb, strongly forbids anxiety in the Sermon on the Mount. Yet even he seems to leave room for some legitimate “anxiety”: “Tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matt. 6:34). In other words, concern for today’s needs is understandable (cf. “give us this day our daily bread”), but anxiety about tomorrow demonstrates lack of faith. We find a similar tension in Jesus’ words when he tells his disciples “Let not your hearts be troubled” (John 14:1, different Greek verb), for his own heart was troubled multiple times (John 11:33; 12:27; 13:21).
    Finally, back to Paul: He confesses his own “anxiety” to the Philippians (Phil. 2:28; unrelated Greek word) and tells the Corinthians of “the daily pressure… of [his] anxiety for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28; closely related word). So don’t be anxious if you are sometimes anxious! Just cast it on the Lord (1 Pet. 5:7).
  5. Some who are claiming Jeremiah 29:11 (“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope”) are actually destined to experience Jeremiah 18:11. Jeremiah 29:11 is an increasingly popular verse. Last year it didn’t make the top 10 ranking for YouVersion. But this year it was the only verse to make top five ranking for both YouVersion and Bible Gateway, and it was the number 1 most popular verse this year for YouVersion in Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Australia. It’s not hard to understand why this verse is popular. Who doesn’t want to be assured that God has good plans for them?
    But what if he doesn’t? Does God have good plans for everyone? Apparently not, according to Jeremiah 18:11: “Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’”
    Those who hope to legitimately claim Jeremiah 29:11 for themselves must remember several things: (1) It was initial spoken to a specific audience just as much as Jeremiah 18:11 was; the original audience was also assured in the immediately preceding verse that “when seventy years are completed for Babylon,” God would bring them back to Jerusalem. (2) The original hearers were warned not to expect God’s good plans for them to happen anytime soon; contrary to the words of the false prophets, they would have to wait seventy years before being released from exile–by which time many of the original hearers would have been dead! (3) The original promise was given to a group of people and not to an individual; only faithful members of the group who sought God with all their heart could hope to benefit from the promise. Those who were not part of Israel’s faithful remnant would not experience God’s good plans.
    In summary, while Jeremiah 29:11 certainly does reveal God’s heart for his own people, it is dangerously wrong to use this verse as a universal promise to hand out indiscriminately to high school graduates and New Year celebrants. God has plans for you, no doubt! But unless you are repentant, his plans will only bring you disaster.
  6. The “you” in Matthew 6:33 is plural. As with the preceding example, this verse is often taken as a personal, individual promise: If I “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” then I can expect God to give me “all these things”–sufficient daily food and clothing, according to the context. And perhaps it is legitimate to understand this statement this way. Maybe Jesus simply meant “every individual (singular) one of you (plural).” But it is intriguing to ponder a possible deeper significance of the plural “you.”
    Might Jesus be saying that if his followers, together, faithfully seek God’s kingdom first, then he will ensure that his followers as a group will be given sufficient food and clothing to go around? Might he design to give this provision in such a way so that we share among ourselves until whoever gathers much has nothing left over, and whoever gathers little has no lack (2 Cor. 8:15)? Could it be that some poor believers are waiting for us to enable this promise of God to be fulfilled on their behalf? Can anyone who prays “give us this day our daily bread” act otherwise?
    Craig Blomberg writes the following about this verse: “Either one must entirely spiritualize this promise or relegate its fulfilment to the eschaton, neither of which fits the immediate context of one who is worrying about current material needs; or else we must understand the plurals of verse 33 as addressed to the community of Jesus’ followers corporately (as indeed the entire sermon is…). As the community of the redeemed seeks first God’s righteous standards, by definition they will help the needy in their midst… Serious application of this principle to contemporary churches would require such radical transformation of most Christian fellowships that few seem willing even to begin.” (Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, 132)
  7. The Gospel writer John uses bad grammar in John 3:16. The phrase “that whoever believes in him should not perish” literally reads, “that whoever believes into him.” (For you Greek readers, the word is εἰς, not ἐν.) In the previous verse Jesus said, “that whoever believes in [ἐν] him.” But when John adds his commentary, beginning with verse 16 (another surprise–literary clues strongly suggest Jesus never spoke 3:16), he strengthens Jesus’ words by using bad grammar: “believes into.” Bill Mounce says that this is “a horrible ‘blunder’ that is so bad we have no record of anyone else in all Greek literature making the same blunder.”
    Why does John do this? Mounce again: “Of course, he is doing it intentionally to make a point… Saving faith is a trusting in the person and work of Jesus (who he is and what he has done) such that we move our self-reliant trust out of ourselves, flinging ourselves into the merciful arms of God.” (For more, see here.)
    And another surprise: The word “so” in the opening phrase (“For God so loved”) might not mean what you think it does. See the NET footnotes for more.

Finally… in good Pauline fashion I think I should give you yet another indication that I hope to end soon. So I’ll make a transition and save the final 3 surprises for yet another post. 🙂

What about the surprises in this post? Which one surprises you the most? Which old familiar verse feels richer to you (or maybe less comfortable) after reading these thoughts? Share your surprising insights below!


Save page