Tag Archives: homosexuality

Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (2 of 5)

According to existing historical records, Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality.1 This fact leads many to critique the church today for focusing on “things that Jesus never once talked about,” as Richard Rohr has put it.2

What should we conclude from Jesus’ silence? Did his silence mean homosexual behavior was a non-issue to him? Was he okay with it?

This is part of a five-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:

    1. Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series
    2. How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?
    3. Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?
    4. Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality
    5. Conclusions: Was (and Is) Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?

Arguments from silence can be powerful. A famous example comes from the Sherlock Holmes short story “The Adventure of Silver Blaze.” Here is some dialogue that shows how silence helped Holmes solve a mystery:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident… Obviously the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog knew well. It was Straker who removed Silver Blaze from his stall and led him out on to the moor.”

The key lesson from this example is that silence is meaningful when you have a strong reason to expect noise instead.

There is a strong reason to expect a dog to bark if a stranger intrudes at midnight. Is there a strong reason to expect Jesus to have spoken about homosexuality? When the dog did not bark, Holmes concluded he must have been “okay with” the intruder. Can we include the same about Jesus and homosexual behavior? How should we interpret Jesus’ silence about homosexuality?

In this post I am going to explain why I think Jesus’ silence on homosexuality behavior is not very meaningful—why it is not good evidence he approved of it. His silence is best understood as agreement with the existing Jewish consensus about homosexuality.

A meme I found on Facebook. The person who shared it meant Jesus must approve of homosexuality, since he said nothing on the topic. I don’t think that’s what his silence meant.

Ancient Jewish Beliefs About Homosexuality:
What They Did

What was the range of beliefs about homosexuality among ancient Jews?

Let’s consider first what Israel actually did. It is clear that some Israelites engaged in homosexual activity during the time between the conquest of Canaan under Joshua (about 1400 BC) and the fall of Jerusalem at the beginning of the Exile (586 BC). Homosexual activity was common among the Canaanites before Israel entered the land, and over time Israel increasingly imitated them.

Various forms of homosexual activity are recorded several places in the Old Testament, some consensual and some not. For example:

Behold, the men of the city [of Gibeah], worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.”  (Judges 19:22; about 1300 to 1100 BC)

There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. (1 Kings 14:24; about 930 BC)

Eventually homosexual prostitution happened right in the temple in Jerusalem:

And he [King Josiah] broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord (2 Kings 23:7; about 620 BC)

On the one hand, this evidence shows that many Israelites were okay with homosexuality—just as some Israelites were okay with sacrificing babies to idols and oppressing the poor and many other activities contrary to the Law of Moses. On the other hand, we have this evidence because it was preserved in texts that were part of the sacred scriptures of Israel, and these texts called these historical activities “abominations” (1 Kings 14:24).

Significantly, when we examine the period right before and during the life of Jesus, we do not find Jews practicing homosexuality like they did prior to the Exile.

Before the Exile, Jews widely imitated the sexual practices of the nations around them, just as they had imitated their idolatry. After the return from Exile, however, Jews showed an “obvious contrast with ancient Greek culture” around them regarding homosexuality, says commentator Craig S. Keener, an expert on the early Jewish and Greco-Roman setting of the New Testament. He summarizes the evidence:

Jewish people… unanimously rejected homosexual behavior… Jewish people associated homosexual activity especially (and probably largely accurately) with Gentiles. Although Jewish sources report Jewish adulterers, johns, and murderers, Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown… Idolatry and homosexual behavior [were recognized by] Jewish people… as exclusively Gentile vices.3

Ancient Jewish Beliefs About Homosexuality:
What They Wrote

When we move from historical practices to written perspectives, the evidence is unanimous: Ancient Jewish literature consistently condemns all forms of homosexual behavior. It is clear that, for ancient Israelites who were attempting to be faithful to the Sinai covenant, homosexual activity was never okay.

Let’s examine what ancient Jewish writings say about homosexuality. I’ll summarize the Old Testament evidence, but emphasize the evidence that is closer to Jesus’ day.

The Books of Moses present male-female marriage as the creation pattern (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:18-25). They also record two examples of homosexual activity that occurred before Israel existed: Ham “saw the nakedness of his father” Noah (Gen. 9:20-25) and the men of Sodom tried to “know” the men who were visiting Lot (Gen. 19:4-11). Both stories are brief, cryptic, and much argued over. In both cases, however, the narratives imply that the activity was not good.

The Law of Moses forcefully prohibited homosexual and transgender behavior:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination… If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; cf. Deut. 22:5; 23:17-18)

Significantly, these commands used the most general terms possible for homosexual behavior (“a man lies with a male”), avoiding narrower terms that would have applied only to cases such as temple prostitution.4 Underscoring this reality, both commands ended with the phrase “as with a woman”; it is clearly contrary to the rest of the Law of Moses to imagine that the commands were intended to mean “You shall not commit rape with a male as with a woman” or “You shall not engage in prostitution with a male as with a woman,” for both rape and prostitution were prohibited “with a woman” as well. Instead, these commands prohibited a male from doing with a man what would be, in the appropriate circumstances, right and good to do “with a woman.”5

These commands prohibited the act of homosexual union itself, not merely any possible negative attending attitudes or circumstances. They were not written in a form that distinguished between good homosexual activity (loving, consensual, faithful) and bad homosexual activity (lustful, violent, promiscuous), but between male and female.6 These commands, therefore, excluded female-female sexual relations as surely as male-male.7

Even consensual homosexual acts were forbidden by these commands, as is indicated by the shared guilt (“both of them have committed an abomination”).8 These blanket prohibitions of all homosexual acts formed the foundation, along with the Genesis creation account, for all future Jewish thinking about homosexuality.

The prophet Ezekiel described Sodom’s sins in a way that suggested her acts of “abomination” (compare with Lev. 20:13)9 were a chief reason for her destruction:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (Ez. 16:49-50)

What about Jews living nearer to the time of Jesus? What did they write about homosexual behavior? Here are seven examples:

[Moses] compels us to recognize that we must perform all our actions… according to the standard of righteousness… For most other men [non-Jews] defile themselves by promiscuous intercourse… For they not only have intercourse with men but they defile their own mothers and even their daughters. — “The Letter of Aristeas” (second century B.C.)10

Neither commit adultery nor rouse homosexual passion… Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature… And let not women imitate the sexual role of men. — Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences (between 100BC and 100AD)11

The entertainment recorded by Plato [in Symposium] is almost entirely connected with love; not that of men madly desirous or fond of women, or of women furiously in love with men, for these desires are accomplished in accordance with a law of nature, but with that love which is felt by men for one another… for the greater part of the book is occupied by common, vulgar, promiscuous love. — Philo, On the Contemplative Life (early first century A.D.)12

All the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities of wickedness and abominable fornications, that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report. — 2 Enoch 34:2 (first century A.D.)13

What about our laws about marriage? That law… abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if anyone does that, death is its punishment. — Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (about 97 A.D.)14

These are the felons who are put to death by stoning. He who has sexual relations with (1) his mother… (4) with a male, and (5) with a cow. — Mishnah, Sanhedrin (second century A.D.)15

The unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God, nor will… those who commit outrages and have sexual intercourse with males. — “The Testament of Jacob” (ancient; date unclear)16

It is important to notice several features of these quotes:

  • Their foundation for ethics was the Law of Moses.17
  • They appealed also to creation, and therefore considered same-sex promiscuity to be unnatural in a way that heterosexual promiscuity is not.18
  • They focused on same-sex acts themselves, not merely on contextual factors such as promiscuity or violence.19
  • They spoke against even mutual, consensual homosexual relations (“friend with friend,” 2 Enoch).

This is what Jews in Jesus’ day believed about homosexual behavior. This is the world into which Jesus was born.

There were no gay night clubs in Jerusalem. There was no “welcoming and affirming” synagogue in Nazareth. There were no Roman lawyers trying to convince Pilate to require Jewish bakers to make cakes for homosexual weddings. There were no Jews “coming out” on social media. There were no rainbow flags projected onto the temple mount. The Jerusalem Times was not publishing feel-good stories about LGBTQ persons.

Jewish denominations were debating topics like angels, the resurrection, how Jews should relate to their Roman occupiers, and even when divorce was justified.20 But there was no intramural rabbinical debate about homosexuality. Jewish leaders came to Jesus to explore and test his views on many issues, but no one asked him about homosexuality. No one had to. Everyone knew that everyone already knew the answer.  Homosexuality behavior was something “out there” that non-Jews did, and no Jewish rabbi had to stake out his public position on the topic.

“What did Jews writing after the Old Testament period, from the fifth century BC through the sixth century AD think about homosexual practice?” authors Fortson and Grams ask. After examining the evidence, here is their answer:

There is no debate at all: Jews consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort after the return from the exile and right through the early church period. Jews understood the Old Testament to speak against homosexual behavior, and they accepted biblical authority in matters of sexual ethics.21

In fact, despite increasing homosexual activity within Israel prior to the Exile, the perspective of all existing ancient Jewish writings from the very first (the time of Moses) through the early Christian period is consistent:

For a period of about 2000 years, all Jews everywhere taught that homosexual unions of any sort were sinful and against nature.22

Interpreting the Evidence

For purposes of our discussion here about Jesus’ silence, this is the key sentence from Fortson and Grams: “There is no debate at all: Jews consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort after the return from the exile and right through the early church period.”

This fits with Craig S. Keener’s summary of the same time period, as quoted above:

Jewish people… unanimously rejected homosexual behavior… Although Jewish sources report Jewish adulterers, johns, and murderers, Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown.

“Nearly unknown.” “No debate at all.” This is the world into which Jesus was born.

If homosexual activity was “nearly unknown” among Jews of the time, then it is no wonder that we do not know of any explicit word from rabbi Jesus on the topic.

If there is “no debate” about what Jews taught in this period about homosexuality, then there was little reason for Jesus to be debating the topic, either—or for us to debating what Jesus might have believed about it.

Historical Jesus scholar J. P. Meier makes the same point about Jesus and sexual ethics in general:

On sexual matters… one could call both Jesus and the Essenes extreme conservatives … apart from the two special cases of divorce and celibacy, where he diverged from mainstream Judaism [and arguably was more stringent than they were], his views were those of mainstream Judaism.  Hence there was no pressing need for him to issue or for the earliest Christian Jews to enshrine moral pronouncements about matters on which all Law-abiding Jews agreed.  If almost all Jews agreed that acts of fornication and adultery were wrong, there was no reason for Jesus, who shared these views (see, e.g., Mark 7:21-22; Luke 16:18) to exegete the obvious.23

Adultery was not a frequent topic in Jesus’ teaching.24 Sins of the heart were a more urgent concern, for many of his hearers aimed to “outwardly appear righteous to others”—avoiding public sins like adultery—“but within [were] full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28).

If Meier’s observation is valid for adultery, how much more for homosexuality, which was “nearly unknown” among Jews at the time? Robert Gagnon summarizes things well:

Jesus’ alleged silence has to be set against the backdrop of unequivocal and strong opposition to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible and throughout early Judaism.”25

Conclusions

What, then, should we conclude from Jesus’ silence about homosexuality?

Given that (a) homosexual practice was “nearly unknown” within Jesus’ Jewish culture, and given that (b) there is “no debate” that Jews in Jesus’ day “consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort,” it is wishful thinking to argue that, just because our historical records do not record rabbi Jesus specifically mentioning the topic, he therefore approved of homosexual relationships.

Remember the lesson from Sherlock Holmes: silence is meaningful when you have a strong reason to expect noise instead.  In this case there was little reason to expect a word from Jesus. If Jesus was silent on the topic, then we, with his original audience, can safely assume that he agreed with the Jewish consensus that homosexual behavior is sinful.

There is another silence, however, that is very telling.

Given the universal consensus among first-century Jews that homosexuality was exceedingly evil, imagine the outcry that would have arisen if Jesus’ listeners had noticed any reason to believe he was affirming homosexual activity. If Jesus, as a Jewish rabbi, had been understood to disagree with the Jewish consensus about homosexuality, he would have been immediately and forcefully rejected by fishermen and Pharisees alike. The silence from Jesus’ listeners on this point speaks powerfully: they saw no reason to think that Jesus affirmed homosexual behavior.

If they didn’t, why should we?

Thanks for reading. Comments are welcome, but thanks (again) for understanding that I have limited time for follow-up discussions.


If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:

  1. I say “explicitly” because I think Jesus actually did talk about it, and even came very close to naming it. I’ll explain more in post 4. Some who are lobbying for Christians to accept homosexuality think Jesus mentioned it, too. I’ll explain why I disagree with their claim in post 5.
  2. Richard Rohr, “Love Is Who You Are,” online article, adapted from Richard Rohr, True Self/ False Self (Franciscan Media: 2003), disc 2 (CD), Center for Action and Contemplation, August 11, 2016, https://cac.org/love-is-who-you-are-2016-08-11/, accessed September 7, 2019.
  3. Craig S. Keener, Romans, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009), Kindle Edition, commentary on Romans 1:24-27, emphasis added. Schreiner agrees: “Homosexual relations were not uncommon in the Greco-Romans world, while they were consistently frowned upon by Jews. Jews who practiced same-sex relations doubtless existed, but if they remained in Jewish society, they almost certainly kept it a secret to avoid social ostracism. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 87.
  4. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams underscore this point: “Temple prostitution is addressed in the Old Testament, and particular language was available in Hebrew to reference it. It could, therefore, have been clearly mentioned here had the author wanted to limit the laws to that context… Other prohibitions of certain homosexual acts in the ancient Near East… do not oppose homosexuality in general; they refer to specific types of homosexual acts. If, then, these laws specified what was prohibited, why did Lev 18:22 and 20:13 not specify particular kinds of homosexual acts? The answer to this question seems clear: any type of homosexual act was being prohibited.”
  5. Gane provides a more word-for-word translation of the phrase “as with a woman,” but comes to essentially the same conclusion: “Both instances of the ban on homosexuality contain the phrase ‘lyings (plural of miskab) of a woman’ (18:22; 20:13)… By itself this idiom is morally neutral… ‘Lyings’ are illicit when one party usurps the customary sexual activity (hence the plural, apparently) that rightfully belongs to another… In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the one who usurps a woman’s ‘lyings’ is any male.” Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers,  The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 327-328. Kindle Edition.
  6. Gagnon identifies the same purpose in this concluding phrase: “The reason for the prohibition is evident from the phrase ‘lying with a male as though lying with a woman.’ What is wrong with same-sex intercourse is that it puts another male, at least insofar as the act of sexual intercourse is concerned, in the category of female rather than male… The non-procreative character of same-sex intercourse was no more the primary consideration in the rejection than it was for the proscription of bestiality. Incest and adultery, two other sexual acts rejected in Leviticus 18 and 20 are certainly not wrong because they are non-procreative; but neither is the primary reason for their rejection that fact that children might arise. All three are wrong because they constitute sex with another who is either too much of an ‘other’ (sex with an animal) or too much of a ‘like’ (sex with a near kin and sex with a member of the same sex). These are transcultural creation categories, not superstitious dregs from a bygone era” (Robert Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues,” 2003, online article based on an interview with Zenit News Agency, March 21 and 28, 2002, pub. by OrthodoxyToday.org, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php, accessed August 28, 2019.)
  7. Several more observations confirm this: 1) It is very difficult to imagine a patriarchal society such as ancient Israel blessing lesbianism while prohibiting male homosexuality. 2) There is no evidence ancient Jews ever believed this law offered a loophole for lesbianism; rather, those who mentioned lesbianism spoke against it. 3) Ancient laws were paradigmatic rather than listing every conceivable situation (see Appendix at end of forthcoming post three in this series); thus, for example, the Ten Commandments, though addressed grammatically to males, apply equally to females.
  8. The translation of Leviticus 20:13 by Jewish scholar Everett Fox confirms these interpretations: “A man who lies with a male (as one) lies with a woman—abomination have the two of them done, they are to be put-to-death, yes, death, their bloodguilt is upon them!” Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1995), 607. Fox’s translation aims to convey the literary forms, word-plays, and rhetorical power of the underlying Hebrew.
  9. Yuan notes that the verbal parallel between Ezekiel and Leviticus actually involves a phrase, not just one word: “In Hebrew, ‘abomination’ is toevah and ‘did’ is asah. These two words appear next to each other not only in Ezekiel 16:50, but also in Leviticus 20:13. The prophet Ezekiel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, used these two words to connect Sodom’s sin with Leviticus 20:13″ (Christopher Yuan, book review of Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate, by Justin Lee. The Gospel Coalition, January 7, 2013, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/torn/, accessed September 5, 2019). It should be noted that Ezekiel uses toevah to refer to a wide range of sins, not only sexual ones. Further, toevah and asah are found together in multiple places in the OT, including elsewhere in Ezekiel, not only in these two verses. Nevertheless, given (a) that Sodom did commit sins of a homosexual nature, and (b) that homosexual acts were described using the same word pair “did-abomination” (asah-toevah) in Leviticus 20:13, it seems probable that Ezekiel is thinking here of Sodom’s acts of homosexuality.  Duguid suggests the same possibility: “The sexual sin to which it gave its name” (sodomy) “may lie behind the ‘detestable things’ of Ezekiel 16:50” (Duguid, Iain M.. Ezekiel, The NIV Application Commentary, p. 170. Zondervan. Kindle Edition).
  10. The Letter of Aristeas, trans. H. T. Andrews, in The Apocrapha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles (New York, NY: Clarendon, 1913), 83-122. Note: for these quotations of intertestamental Jewish literature, I am relying heavily on quotes and citations provided by S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams in Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016). See there book for the extended contexts of these quotes and for more.
  11. Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences, 3 and 192, trans. P.W. van der Horst, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985).
  12. Philo, On the Contemplative Life 1:59, in The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, trans. C. D. Yonge, 4 vols. (London, England: Henry G. Bohn, 1854-55).
  13. “2 Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth, trans. F. I. Andersen (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 158.
  14. Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 2:199, trans. William J. Whiston (public domain, 1828).
  15. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.4, in Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 596.
  16. “The Testament of Jacob,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth, trans. W. F. Stinespring (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 917.
  17. “The Letter of Aristeas,” Pseudo-Phocylides, Josephus, Mishnah.
  18. “A law of nature,” Philo; “the limits set by nature,” Pseudo-Phocylides. Some argue that the concept of  “contrary to nature” meant “contrary to cultural custom.” But this makes little sense of the term’s use by those pagan Greeks who critiqued their own culture’s widespread acceptance of same-sex relationships. It makes more sense to see the term, in both its Greek and its Jewish uses, as meaning roughly “contrary to physical design; contrary to the way things were made to work.” In the Jewish context, this is equivalent to saying “contrary to how God created things to function.” Paul uses the term in Romans 1 in the context of explicitly referring to God as Creator.
  19. “Intercourse with men,” “Letter of Aristeas”; “friend with friend in the anus,” 2 Enoch; “the mixture of a male with a male,” Josephus; “sexual relations… with a male,” Mishnah; “sexual intercourse with males,” “The Testament of Jacob.”
  20. I cannot recall any example of when any Jew was surprised by Jesus’ position on a sexual topic except when his own disciples were surprised at his rigid stance on divorce and remarriage.
  21. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 235.
  22. Ibid., 248.
  23. J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, volume 3 (New York, 2001), 502-503 as quoted in G. Thomas Hobson, “ἀσέλγεια in Mark 7:22,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 21 (2008), 73.
  24. Jesus did teach directly on adultery. But the times he mentioned adultery fall into two camps: times he cited adultery in passing in lists of well-known sins or commands (cf. Matt. 15:19; 19:18), and times when he expanded the “textbook” definition of adultery to include lust or wrongful divorce (cf. Matt. 5:28, 32). The latter were the only times he “exegeted” adultery, to use Meier’s term.
  25. Gagnon, ibid. Gagnon also summarizes what we can learn from Jesus’ “alleged silence”: There is no historical basis for arguing that Jesus might have been neutral or even favorable toward same-sex intercourse. All the evidence we have points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Jesus would have strongly opposed same-sex intercourse had such behavior been a serious problem among first-century Jews.”

Save page

Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (1 of 5)

I have never discussed homosexuality on this blog.1 I’ve decided it’s time to change this. So, after some reading and conversations to prepare, I’ve drafted a five-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:

  1. Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series
  2. How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?
  3. Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?
  4. Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality
  5. Conclusions: Was (and Is) Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?

I hope to share one post per week until this series is done.

Since this is a difficult topic, please bear with me as I share a long preamble in this post. It doesn’t really matter what I believe; what matters is what Jesus believes. Yet perhaps if I explain myself a little first, I can clear the ground for discussing what really matters. However, if you want to jump ahead to my condensed answer to the blog title, go here.

There are many reasons not to write about homosexuality. The topic is a linguistic and political minefield, full of labels and terminology that are constantly evolving in meaning and “correctness.” It’s intrinsically complex, involving questions such as causation (nature vs. nurture, etc.), public policy, and church discipleship. And it’s a sure way to win some enemies—while also winning friends whose responses you can’t always fully endorse.

I’ve also heard it suggested that this is a topic best left for private conversations—face-to-face interactions with people whose trust you have already earned through friendship. I agree that those kinds of interactions offer possibilities that mere blogging does not.

My greatest fear in sharing this series is that my “medicine,” though urgently needed by some readers, will prove to be a painful “overdose” for others—readers who are already convinced of the truth of what I share, and who need help knowing how to live with these truths. If that describes you, please forgive me for not being able to give personalized “medical care” according to each reader’s need. I hope you can still sense love in my words.

Why I Am Writing

Despite these reservations, I’ve noticed something that has convinced me it is time to write. I’ve noticed that many who are promoting homosexual behaviors do not have a similar reluctance about expressing their views in public. I’m noticing that both social media and traditional media are filled with statements justifying and celebrating homosexuality. The closet has long been abandoned for the megaphone. In fact, most North Americans probably hear far more public comments promoting homosexual behaviors than questioning them. I know I do.

When one hears a new idea often enough, it often becomes easy to believe, especially if it is simply and winsomely defended while opposing views are ignored or caricatured. As the years pass, I’m seeing more and more friends and acquaintances abandon what they once believed about homosexuality. Some are now practicing homosexuals. Others are celebrating their choices.

For many people today, contrary to the experience of most people throughout most of history, it now appears much more logical and loving to approve of homosexual relationships than to disapprove of them. In our culture, at least temporarily, the arguments in favor of homosexuality appear to be winning the day.

I know a few blog posts are unlikely to make much difference, and I feel poorly equipped for the task. But “somebody needs to do it,” so I’ll try.

An image I found online. I added the “Really?” What would Jesus do? The original image implied Jesus would affirm homosexuality. My addition calls that into question.

What I Am Writing About

To keep my job easier, I’ll narrow my focus. Narrowing my focus is essential unless I want to write a book, but it also brings dangers. Having a narrow focus means I’ll pass over many crucial pastoral questions that deserve clear and compassionate thought:

  • “I think I’m gay. What should I do about it?”
  • “My friend is LGBTQ+. How should I relate to them?”
  • Is “gay Christian” a helpful label? What about the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual”? (I am using the former in this blog series as a catch-all term to describe all forms of LGBT+ behavior, not because I unquestioningly accept the paradigm, but in order to avoid verbal mouthfuls.)
  • How can we support those who experience persistent desires they did not choose, and which they have repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked God to remove?
  • Is it possible to change one’s sexual orientation, or good to try?
  • How, if at all, should Christians try to shape social policy about sexuality and gender identity?
  • How can we love someone well while disagreeing with them about something as fundamental as sexual morality?
  • And many more…

I will also fail to meaningfully discuss several crucial questions of Bible interpretation, such as:

  • How should Christians interpret and apply the Old Testament, including its commands against homosexuality?
  • What did Paul mean by the specific words he used in the passages where he mentions same-sex behavior?

Please hear me: By skipping such questions, I do not at all mean to imply that they are unimportant. Rather, I mean to focus my energy where I feel best equipped to contribute. (For one helpful post addressing some pastoral questions, with links to more resources, read “The Powerful Witness of Same-Sex Attracted Christians” by Emily Hallock.)

My goal in these blog posts is to examine a single question, one that is more foundational than most listed above: Was Jesus okay with homosexuality?

I am intentionally phrasing the question in past tense, because I intend to focus on historical evidence, considering what Jesus of Nazareth—the person who lived in the first century, rather than the Jesus of today—actually believed. I am not making this distinction because I believe that those are two different Jesuses. However, I want us to push past our fuzzy feelings about Jesus today to consider actual historical evidence.

It is easy to say “I think Jesus believes X” if we pull him and one or two of his sayings (or his silence) out of his first century context into our own. But if we consider his actual historical context our possibilities are more constrained.

In considering Jesus’ historical context, I will use both the Bible and other ancient writings, treating them essentially alike as historical documents. (The Bible is more than a collection of historical documents, but it is certainly not less.) I will address some theological questions along the way and especially in my final post, “Was (and Is) Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?” But my goal is to focus on historical evidence and, where I make theological deductions and pastoral applications, to keep them tied closely to that historical evidence.

Who I Am Writing for and
What I Hope to Accomplish

I am aiming for a specific audience as I write. As my blog purpose statement says, “This website exists to build up the Church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures.” This means I am writing primarily to people who identify as Christians. For such readers, I am aiming to shore up your biblical beliefs about homosexuality or, if you have already lost them, to invite you to reconsider the evidence. I also have my children in mind, hoping they will read this or similar material someday. Other readers are welcome to listen in, but please realize I will not be trying to answer your questions.

Please hear me: I am certainly not writing to attack my homosexual friends. You probably did not choose your desires any more than I chose mine. I’ve heard too many stories of people becoming aware of homosexual desires from childhood to believe that all such desire can be explained by personal choice or by external factors such as abuse. I ache for the many who desperately long to escape homosexual desires, but with no success. I ache for those who turn to the church for compassion and support but find only rejection and ridicule.

Please hear me also in this: I do not believe that the mere experience of homosexual desire makes us guilty before God. I say that even though I believe that such desires are disordered or, to use a more ancient term, “contrary to nature” and God’s initial good creation design. I believe we all live in a broken world and that we experience its brokenness in unpredictable and seemingly unfair ways. Some of us are disordered in other ways, leaving us more prone to things such as anger, anxiety, depression, or experiencing deception. I do not believe we are guilty merely for possessing such tendencies any more than I am guilty for having been born with a susceptibility to the shoulder injury I experienced. Rather, we are accountable for whether we feed and act on our disordered desires, or whether we submit them to God.

And even then, whatever your own life choices, one of my life mantras applies to you as surely as to me: “We all need more love than we deserve.” I desire to offer you dignity and love, even (especially) when we disagree. After all, disagreement, too, is a form of love, for “only what is true can ultimately be pastoral.”2

When my title asks “Was Jesus okay with homosexuality?” I am primarily asking about behaviors, not desires. I do believe Jesus held beliefs about homosexual desire similar to what I sketched above—that the experience of mere desire (weakness/hunger/temptation)3 is neither intrinsically sinful nor something to be celebrated as being in line with God’s original good creation design. Yet I also believe that God places people with many varied weaknesses in Christ’s church and intends to use such realities for good. My title, therefore, refers primarily to the question of whether Jesus affirmed homosexual behaviors.

My main goal in writing these posts is to convince readers that agreeing with the historical Jesus and affirming homosexual behavior are not compatible.

I believe it is intellectually inconsistent and also disastrous to the church of Jesus to try to combine the two. If you want to affirm homosexual behavior and yet remain “Christian,” then the onus is on you to do some theological footwork to explain why you can believe differently than the historical Jesus and still remain “Christian.” Most Christians by far disagree with you, and so do most secular gay scholars. I think you need to choose between the two, and I sincerely hope you choose Jesus.

Enough about me. Now that I’ve told you where I’m going, let’s jump right in.

A Summary of What I Plan to Say

Here is the sort of argument we sometimes hear from those seeking to undermine Christian opposition to homosexual behavior. It is simple, and it is attractive:

  1. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, much less spoke against it.
  2. He said love is the greatest commandment.
  3. He befriended social outcasts, including those who were called “sinners” by the religious elites.
  4. Therefore, he was (and is) okay with loving homosexual relationships.

The first three points are, on face value, all true. But what do they mean? Does 4 logically flow from 1, 2, and 3?

These three points need to be read in light of their historical and literary contexts or else they will be misunderstood. All three, or at least the first two, are true only with asterisks. And even if we accept them at face value, point 4 is not proven by points 1, 2, and 3.

Here is a summary of my response to such thinking:

  1. All known Jewish teachers for about 2000 years who addressed homosexual behavior agreed that it is very sinful, so Jesus had no more reason to address the topic than to address a topic like bestiality. If he, as a Jewish rabbi, had disagreed with this consensus, he would have been immediately rejected. His silence on the topic would have been assumed to be agreement—and should be assumed so by us, unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary.
  2. Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” was a quote from the Old Testament book that also contains its strongest teachings against homosexual activity. Ancient Jews and Christians saw no conflict between promoting love and opposing homosexual behavior. Jesus taught that loving God is the “most important” commandment and that loving your neighbor is “second” to loving God. Thus loving your neighbor, according to Jesus, involves treating your neighbor in a way that pleases God. Jesus’ teachings on love do not indicate he was okay with homosexuality.
  3. Though Jesus was a friend of sinners, he called them to repent. He also affirmed and even strengthened core Jewish sexual ethics. He spoke against sexual immorality using language that was normally understood by ancient Jews to include homosexual behavior, and his followers spoke explicitly against homosexuality.
  4. Therefore, no churches anywhere until a few in the past few decades have ever taught that Jesus was (and is) okay with homosexual relationships.

My responses are not as pithy and memorable as the arguments they oppose. Truth involves complexity. But I have tried to summarize these key points briefly, since short arguments are more easily remembered and remembered arguments are more convincing.

Really, it is startling to even have to make these arguments. The historical evidence about what Jesus believed about homosexuality is so overwhelming that it wasn’t seriously questioned by any church denomination until the early 1970s—about the time I was born.

But if my responses here are too brief for you, fear not. I plan to discuss these points and more in the next blog posts, providing historical evidence for my claims.

Meanwhile, thanks for reading. Please comment if you wish, but thank you for understanding that I have limited time for follow-up discussions. I am already investing most of the time I have available in writing these blog posts. Have a blessed week!


If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:

  1. I mentioned the topic briefly twice in book reviews.
  2. Roman Catholic Church, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” accessed August 4, 2019, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html. Here is the context for that statement: “We wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.” I am not Roman Catholic, so would want to replace the allusions to the Roman Catholic Church with references to Jesus’ church and the Scriptures. Apart from this, I agree with this statements.
  3. I realize I am lumping together here some dynamics that some prefer to distinguish for theological or psychological reasons. Such distinctions may be valid, but here I am simply trying to reflect the thought of James 1:14-15: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” I am in general agreement with Moo’s commentary on this passage, though he did not write with homosexual desires explicitly in mind and though his commentary does not answer all my questions: “Temptation, James has said, involves the innate desire toward evil as it is enticed by the superficial attractiveness of sin. If a person should welcome rather than resist that temptation, desire conceives; and if not turned away immediately, it produces sin. James implies that temptation, in and of itself, is not sinful. Only when desire ‘conceives’—is allowed to produce offspring—does sin come into being. The point is an important one, for some extremely sensitive Christians may feel that the fact of their continuing to experience temptation demonstrates that they are out of fellowship with the Lord. To be sure, as one develops more and more of a Christian ‘mind,’ the frequency and power of temptation should grow less. But temptation will be a part of our experience, as it was the experience of the Lord himself (Heb. 2:18), throughout our time on earth. Christian maturity is not indicated by the infrequency of temptation but by the infrequency of succumbing to temptation.” Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 76.

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