August 1997: The fall semester was two weeks away and I was getting desperate. As most of you know, I had been quite ill for over six months with some sort of viral encephalitis. I was not able to finish the last two weeks of the spring semester because of this virus. I had already spent over three weeks in various hospitals, was largely confined to a wheelchair, and had absolutely no energy. I needed to sleep at least 14 hours a day. And I was forgetting things, little things, like my wife’s name and where I lived. I intended to teach my classes in the fall, but my health was simply not coming back as quickly as I had hoped. Still, I thought that I could fulfill my duties—provided that I got a lot of help. Students who lived close by had already volunteered to drive me to school every day. But I needed assistance once I got to campus, too.

So I prayed that the Lord would provide someone who could be my feet, someone who could grade papers, run errands, tutor students, and basically do damage control in the wake of all my miscues.

Even though I had asked the Lord for such an assistant, I could not in good conscience directly ask any student for such help. Normally I have a few interns every year—students who sign up to work 400 hours in close contact with a professor, learning what the academic life is all about. Remarkably, students even pay for this course! We call it the DOULOS program—the “slave [labor] program.”

But this last year was different: I couldn’t offer students any real mentoring: I could not train them, I could only need them. I simply could not ask any students to work with me this past school year; I could only ask the Lord.

Two days after my prayer of desperation, Kris Boring called up. He wanted to be my intern for the year. Kris had taken some Greek courses from me before; I knew he was sharp and quite capable. What I did not know at the time was that he came from a godly family that is a model of charity and hospitality. I did not know that he had graduated cum laude from Rhodes College, nor that he had majored in die Mutter Sprache—German—and had even spent his junior year in Tübingen University, studying that rich and complex language. I did not know of his passion for missions and evangelism, that he had gone on several home mission trips with the Baptist Student Union—to such tough mission fields as East St. Louis, Atlanta, and New Orleans. I did not know that, in college, Kris took a year of koine Greek in the midst of a heavy German curriculum, nor that his non-Christian professors at Rhodes thought so highly of him that they recommended him for Dallas Seminary without any reservation at all. I did not know any of this when Kris called.

At the time, I knew that he had been one of my best students in the Greek classes that he took from me. I remembered that he sat on the very back row in my classes, though I did not know that he always sat in the back row of all his classes. That’s an unusual place for a good student to sit. As you all know, the back row is normally reserved for students who are lazy, goof-offs, or all-night dock workers who need to catch 40 winks. It’s also the row for the grumblers to congregate. But Kris never complained. And his papers kept coming up with high marks: A... A+...A+. Why was he back there? He just didn’t fit the pattern. He was a mystery man.

Every once in a while I would hear a low rumble of a whisper—one with a trace of a Tennessee accent—and the back row would start to laugh. Then I’d see Kris’ smile and the twinkle in his eye. He was the instigator! He had a dry wit and he used it every time he heard me say something silly. The back row was laughing a lot! He had that rare gift of taking his studies seriously, but not himself seriously—and not his professors seriously, either.

This is what I knew of Kris Boring when he called. He wanted to be my intern. But I hesitated simply because I could not offer him anything. Still he persisted. I warned him about getting very little out of the internship. In the early weeks of the semester I was spending as much time in the emergency room as I was at school. Kris knew about all my liabilities. He knew the risks. Yet he wanted to do his 400 hour internship with me. I had prayed that the Lord would send an assistant; Kris listened to the Spirit of God and responded. Here was a young man who had both a sharp mind and a soft heart—a student at this school, facing his senior year, who had not compartmentalized his studies from his service to Christ. Very rare indeed!

The 1997-98 school year would have been a disaster for me and my students had it not been for Kris. I came to know him and know him well this past year. I want to tell you about the Kris Boring that I knew.

The academic internship usually involves grading, research, academic meetings, gophering, and a little teaching. Kris did all this and more. He was my legs. I spoke and he acted. He would check on me every day, just to see if I needed anything. He brought me coffee, did my photocopying, took back my overdue books to the library, passed out handouts to students when I had forgotten them. He even took some late items to Kinko’s just in time to distribute to the class. And he tutored the students that I couldn’t.

Even with all this, I was surprised when he asked if he could cook a meal for my family. He knew that my wife had been working way too hard, taking on the roles of both father and mother. Kris’ offer was not just good intentions. I let it go; a couple of weeks later, he brought it up again. I let it go; and he brought it up again. And again. He would say, “I’m not doing this as part of my internship; I’m doing it because you are my brother in Christ; and I simply want to serve you and your family.” So Kris cooked and brought a four-course meal—including steak as the main entree. The Wallace family (which includes four teenage boys) took two nights to devour the meal!

Kris came to our house fairly often—and offered to come even more. His desire was always the same: to make me look good in the classroom, covering the bases when I forgot materials, or was disorganized, or simply was too pooped to do a proper job. He even took me to the airport at an unspeakable hour of the morning—and then promptly went to the seminary to teach  my class.

Repeatedly, Kris would ask if there was more he could do. We had dozens of conversations in which he offered his services in any way I needed them. When I would protest that such things were outside the scope of an internship, he would simply say, “I don’t care what the job description is; my desire is to help you get through this school year and help you regain your strength. It is my pleasure to serve you.” Kris embodied Jesus’ words: “The one who wants to be great among you must be servant of all.”

One major perk in all this was that Kris got to teach fairly extensively—simply because I missed so many classes. Some of his classroom efforts were videotaped. We reviewed them together. Kris was an excellent teacher, a skillful communicator. He mastered the material well—a rare feat for a student intern, especially when he was on call all the time, and often had very little time to prepare. He also connected with the students. He would tell me that he had been nervous, but it didn’t show. His dry wit brought instant rapport; he was quietly confident, a natural teacher.

Kris’ classroom performance actually helped me to recover: He kept showing me up! I had to get better or I’d lose my class!

Kris was especially effective in teaching second-year Greek. Some of you were in that class and remember the great job he did. The textbook we use is an 850-page tome, filled with depressingly small point type. Some think the author should be flogged for his insensitivity to students! Each student has to read 75 pages every week, then get quizzed over all the material that they are supposed to memorize. I figured that I knew the book pretty well and that I could communicate it clearly enough. But students complained and complained. And complained. They just weren’t getting it.

The first time Kris taught the class, he closed the book and marched through the material in a remarkably clear way. I couldn’t believe that he had mastered the chapter as well as he did. He would make a point, and I would have to look up the reference to see if he was right. Frankly, I did not know the material as well as he did—which is all the more significant since I am the author of the book! Kris was so effective that I changed my own teaching style because of him. Not only did he gently show me how to teach my own material better, he had the courage to do so! I have learned much from Kris Boring.

That was Kris in the classroom. Later in the school year, I saw another dimension to this fine young man. As many of you know, a number of biblical scholars have been working for the past couple of years on a new translation of the Bible. This work—the New English Translation, or the NET Bible—is intended to be readable, accurate, and elegant—in short, the most faithful translation ever done, with comprehensive aids for the reader. It has more extensive notes than any other study Bible ever produced. The New Testament alone has more than 15,000 notes—and over half a million words in those notes. It is our hope and prayer that this translation will be used of God in a mighty way.

Kris worked on it. Part of his internship was to proofread portions of the New Testament. His first assignment was to proofread Revelation. Kris did such an incredibly meticulous job that it honestly reminded me of the work of the great Herman Hoskier—a Greek scholar whose careful work on Revelation seventy years ago was called ‘almost supernatural’ by Sir Frederick Kenyon. Kris not only proofread, he also made several judicious editing suggestions, almost all of which were followed. After his internship was over, Kris’ skill was so crucial that I called on him again to proofread more sections this summer. His work, though not completed, is a monument to his devotion to the Scriptures.

What kind of a student was Kris Boring? He graduated from Dallas Seminary magna cum laude and was a fraction away from summa cum laude. He earned this degree last Friday, August 28th …  Kris was very competent in Greek, Hebrew, Bible, theology. He prepared himself well for ministry and took his task of searching the scriptures—of pursuing truth—very seriously. His roommate told me that he has never met anyone as gifted in the biblical languages as Kris.

While most students would spend an hour or two preparing for a Hebrew quiz, Kris would memorize the material in ten minutes! And, of course, this irritated the socks off his classmates! But Kris was never showy; he had genuine humility. I never once heard him brag about his abilities. In fact, only last week did I learn that he was the valedictorian of his 1988 high school graduating class—a class of 597. He never mentioned it to me.

All of this raises a question: Kris was a bright young man, in the prime of his life, full of promise and hope. He prepared himself well for a lifetime of ministry. He knew his Master, and he fell in love with the young lady who was to be his mate. He was running on all cylinders; he was in his stride. And then, God took him home!

There is an increasing shortage of faithful ministers of the Word, godly leaders who will stand up for Jesus Christ no matter what the cost—men and women who have profound integrity, a passion for truth, and are driven by the love of Christ. Christians who believe that the mind is worth disciplining and cultivating—and who have a servant’s heart—are the rarest of God’s children. Kris was one of them. I have spoken to several students and faculty who were quite despondent over Kris’ death—even those who did not know him. But they knew that he was part of a vanishing breed. Our world needs Kris Borings, lots of them.

Yet the Lord took him home? Why? ... I don’t know; I don’t have the answers. But I know the One who does. And I know that we can trust him because nothing catches him by surprise. God was not shocked at Kris’ death. He is the sovereign Lord of the universe—of space and time. And he is good to his children. We can trust him because our heavenly Father, too, knows pain and suffering. He gave up his own Son for us that we might have life eternal.

Mr. And Mrs. Boring, Scott, Jody, and Mr. and Mrs. Cotton all have mixed emotions right now. They are exhausted from an emergency trip to Ecuador, then back home to Cleveland, Tennessee for a memorial service this last weekend, followed by a long drive down here to Dallas. Their grief is immeasurably deep; they have lost a loved one! But their grief is not permanent, for they too have the hope of heaven. As strange as it may sound to some of you, they have joy right now in the midst of their hurt—for they know that Kris is alive—that the dark and painful door through which he passed has brought him into the presence of his Lord and Savior. And they know that they will see Kris again because they too have embraced Jesus Christ as their own.

If you’ve never done so before, I implore you to take this time to consider the claims of Christ. Some of you’ve put it off until now; but today is the day of salvation. Heaven is no longer some abstract place; you have a friend there! And there is no better time than right now to put your trust in the risen Lord.

With melancholy feelings, I must bring this tribute to Kris Boring to a close. The young man who began as my student became my teacher and my friend. I have learned a great deal from him. In fact, as I prepared for this eulogy, I tried to find out more about the Kris whom I knew only from my perspective.

To be frank, I was relieved that he wasn’t perfect! He had his faults. No, contrary to what I had anticipated of a Tennessee native, he was not a Country-Western fan! But Kris was a bit of a ... procrastinator. He could get away with it in his studies because he was so doggone smart. But leaving the dishes in the sink for days on end was a different matter! Yet even in his procrastination, Kris had his own system of punctuality. I understand that members of his church here in Dallas could set their clocks by when he would show up: always right at the end of the first hymn. But Kris has had the last laugh, he has shown us that he doesn’t procrastinate in everything—he beat all of us to heaven!

Who will take up the call? Who will be the next Kris Boring and say, “Here I am Lord, send me!” My hope and my prayer is that Kris’ death would be the catalyst for many to get serious with God—and to realize that loving the Lord with all our hearts and our minds is a non-negotiable part of the package if we would be servants of Jesus Christ.

November 10, 2013

Although it sounds heretical to ask, have you ever wondered whether Jesus failed in His mission? His mission was to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). And yet, Jesus left this planet with only a small band of followers compared to the vast numbers, both in Israel and around the world, who remained lost. After 2,000 years of church history, there are still thousands of people groups that have not heard the gospel, and even among those who have heard, the majority of the world’s population remains unbelieving. So did Jesus fail? Has God’s purpose failed?

I would hesitate to raise the question at all, except that the apostle Paul raised it in Romans 9. In light of the Jews’ widespread rejection of Jesus as their Messiah and Savior, Paul deals with whether God’s promises to Israel have failed. He answers that God’s promises have not failed, because God never determined to save all Israel, but only an elect remnant. Also, the salvation of that chosen group does not depend on the fallen will of man, but on the sovereign working of God. As Paul says (Rom. 9:16), “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” And, God does not have mercy on all (Rom. 9:18), “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” Paul shows that God’s purpose to glorify Himself by saving His elect and judging the wicked cannot fail.

That is Jesus’ point in our text. These verses occur in the context of those who ate the miraculous meal of the loaves and fish asking Jesus to do a greater sign so that they may believe in Him (6:30). They want Him to go one up on Moses, who gave them the manna (6:31). Jesus corrects their impudent demand by pointing out that it was the Father, not Moses, who gave them the manna. Also, the bread that God is giving now is not just temporary food to satisfy their stomachs, but the true bread out of heaven to satisfy their souls (6:32). And, unlike the manna that God gave Israel in the wilderness to sustain life for a few years, the true bread out of heaven gives eternal life to the whole world (6:33).

But these Jews were still focused on the temporal when they asked Jesus to give them this bread (6:34). They wanted a lifetime supply of food. Jesus replies by offering Himself as the bread of life who satisfies everyone who comes to Him and believes in Him (6:35). But even though they had seen Jesus, they still did not believe in Him (6:36). That’s the context for Jesus’ words in 6:37-40, where He takes comfort in God’s sovereignty over the salvation of sinners (cf. Luke 10:21-22). The point is, those who reject Jesus do not thwart God’s sovereign plan.

Also, note that after Jesus gives this extended discourse on being the bread of life, some who had professed to be His disciples stumble over what He says and stop following Him (6:60, 61, 66). If Jesus had been trying to build a large following, He could have become discouraged over this. But His focus was on the Father’s will and the fact that He had come to do that will (6:38). There is nothing more certain than that God will accomplish His purpose (Isa. 46:10; Job 42:2). That purpose centers on the fact that He has given a large number from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation to His Son. Jesus will see the result of the anguish of His soul because He poured out Himself to death and bore the sin of many (Rev. 5:9; Isa. 53:10-12). So when people rejected Jesus, even those who had professed to be His disciples, He rested in God’s sovereign plan for the ages.

As a teacher of God’s Word, I must do the same. I hope not, but it’s possible that some of you will hear this message and say, “I’m out of here!” I’d appreciate it if you’d talk to me about what Scripture teaches on this, but usually people just leave. Many who profess to believe in Christ do not like the biblical truth that God sovereignly chose some, but not all, for salvation. They say, “That’s not fair!” They believe that God wills to save everyone, but people by their free will cast the deciding vote. God’s hands are tied to actually save anyone, because He can’t override man’s free will. So according to them, the success of God’s eternal purpose rides on whether sinners choose to respond to Jesus.

But Jesus soundly refutes that error in our text. God’s sovereign plan to glorify His Son does not rest on the sinful will of man, but on God’s mighty power to save all whom He chooses to save. If sinners have a part in their salvation, then they can share the glory with Christ. But as Paul argues in Ephesians 1:3-12, God chose to save us so that we would be “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (1:6). God predestined us “according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory” (1:11-12). By the way, if God cannot override the fallen human will, you should give up praying for the salvation of the lost. Why pray if God can’t do anything about it?

So while it may be hard to get our finite minds around it, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty over our salvation runs through all Scripture, alongside the doctrine of human responsibility. God determined before the foundation of the world to put Christ on the cross, and yet the evil men who did it were responsible for their sin (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). God determined before the foundation of the world to give a chosen bride to His Son, and yet all people are invited and commanded to believe in Jesus. Remember, this doctrine is a part of God’s inspired Word, which is for your spiritual benefit (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If you resist it or dodge it or try to explain it away, you’ll be spiritually impaired. Even if you don’t understand it, you need to submit to it (Rom. 9:19-20). While all Scripture is equally inspired by God, our text reports the very words of the Lord Jesus. His point here is:

Jesus’ mission to save and keep all whom the Father has given to Him will certainly succeed.

Christ offers eternal life to all (6:35), but not all believe (6:36). All those whom God has given to Jesus will come to Him (6:37a). He will save them and keep them for all eternity (6:37b-40).

1. Christ offers Himself as the living bread that gives eternal life to all who believe in Him (6:35).

John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” As Leon Morris points out (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans], p. 366), Jesus’ words are not an abstract statement, but rather an appeal for people to come to Him and believe in Him. As I mentioned last week, this is an astounding claim that no mere man could make. Jesus says that if we will come to Him and believe in Him, He will eternally satisfy and sustain us spiritually.

It’s important to affirm that the doctrine of election does not in any way restrict offering the gospel freely to all. Whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life (John 3:16). The Bible ends with this open invitation (Rev. 22:17), “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.” The Bible never says, “If you’re one of the elect, come.” It invites every sinner to come to Jesus just as you are and know that He will welcome you. But …

2. People are so hopelessly lost in sin that they will reject even the best reasons to believe (6:36).

I might add, “Even religious, morally upright people are so hopelessly lost in sin that they will reject even the best reasons to believe.” Jesus was speaking to religious, moral Jews. They were zealous about keeping the Sabbath and the many Jewish rituals. Yet here they’ve seen Jesus miraculously provide bread and fish for a huge multitude and they’ve watched Him heal many of their sick, but Jesus’ tragic assessment is (6:36), “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.”

People do not reject Christ because they lack solid evidence for believing in Him. Sometimes skeptics will say, “Show me a real miracle and I’ll believe.” No, they wouldn’t. People reject Jesus because they love darkness rather than light (3:19-21). People apart from Christ are spiritually dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-3). They cannot understand spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14) because Satan has blinded their eyes (2 Cor. 4:4).

In John 8:43, Jesus asks the unbelieving Jews, “Why do you not understand what I am saying?” He answers His own question, “It is because you cannot hear My word.” He did not say “because you will not hear My word,” but “because you cannot hear My word.” That’s why He says (John 6:44), “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (also, 6:65). Because of sin, it’s impossible for anyone to believe in Jesus apart from God’s opening their blind eyes (Rom. 3:10-18). In the words of Charles Wesley’s hymn, before Christ sends His “quickening ray,” we are “fast bound in sin and nature’s night.” Leon Morris writes (ibid., p. 367), “People do not come to Christ because it seems to them a good idea. It never does seem a good idea to natural man. Apart from a divine work in their souls (cf. 16:8) men remain contentedly in their sins.” Yet at the same time, we are responsible for our unbelief. So, then, how can anyone be saved?

3. All whom the Father has given to Jesus will certainly be saved (6:37a).

John 6:37a: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me ….” This refers to the elect, whom the Father chose before the foundation of the world to give to His Son. Jesus refers to those the Father has given Him in 6:39 and in 10:29 (see, 18:9). He repeats it five times in His prayer in John 17:

John 17:2: “… even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.”

John 17:6 [2x]: “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.”

John 17:9: “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours ….” (Note that the Father has not given everyone in the world to Jesus, but only some.)

John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

Many argue that the elect, whom the Father gives to the Son, are those whom God foreknew would believe in Christ by their own free will. But as we’ve seen, left to their own fallen will, none would choose to believe in Christ. Furthermore, the foreknowledge ruse robs God of His sovereignty and makes man sovereign. But the Bible is clear that God did not make up His plan for the ages after He saw what sinful people would do!

John Bunyan wrote a wonderful book on John 6:37, “Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ” (in The Works of John Bunyan [Baker], 1:240-299). He makes the point (pp. 256-257) that Jesus’ statement here is unconditional. It will happen without exception because it rests on God’s will, which He is able to accomplish. It’s sometimes called “irresistible grace.” This does not mean that God drags people to Christ kicking and screaming against their will. No one comes to Christ unwillingly. Rather, it means that God makes sinners willing to come to Christ (Ps. 110:3). When Paul preached the gospel to Lydia, we read (Acts 16:14), “And the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” If God had not opened her heart, she would not have responded favorably.

If you have believed in Christ, it’s because the Lord opened your heart to believe. You believed because the Holy Spirit imparted new life to you, apart from anything in you. You believed because in His sovereign grace, before the foundation of the world the Father chose you in love to give to His Son. All whom the Father has given to Jesus will certainly be saved. No sinner can thwart God’s mighty will to accomplish His purpose (Ps. 115:3).

4. Salvation is absolutely and finally secure for all whom the Father has given to Jesus (6:37b-40).

These verses are a wonderful foundation for assurance of salvation for all who have come to Jesus and believed in Him. Note four things:

A. Jesus will keep all whom the Father has given Him (6:37b).

John 6:37b: “… and the one who comes to Me, I will certainly not cast out.” That phrase is often understood, even by the greats like John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon (who has at least seven sermons on this verse), to mean that Christ will welcome all who come to Him. That is certainly true, whether it’s the thief on the cross or Paul, the persecutor of the church. But I agree with D. A. Carson (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans/Apollos], p. 290) that that is not the meaning of this phrase in its context. Rather, what Jesus is saying is that all that the Father gives to Him (who will surely come to Him) He will certainly keep or preserve unto eternity. In modern terms, He won’t “kick out” any whom the Father has given to Him.

There are two reasons that this is what Jesus means here. First, the Greek verb translated “cast out” in almost all of its parallel occurrences refers to casting out something that is already “in.” For example, John uses it (9:34) to refer to the Pharisees expelling the man born blind from the temple (cf. 3 John 10). Second, the next three verses show that this is Jesus’ meaning. He repeatedly emphasizes that He will eternally keep all whom the Father has given Him.

At Christmas, you may receive a gift that you have absolutely no use for (except for a white elephant gift to unload on some poor victim at next year’s Christmas party). Jesus doesn’t do that with the gifts that the Father gives Him. He uses a strong double negative (in the Greek text) to underscore that He will keep every gift from the Father. If you have believed in Jesus, you’re one of God’s gifts to His Son. (Don’t let that go to your head!) As a member of Christ’s body, He will tenderly nourish and cherish you (Eph. 5:29).

B. Jesus will keep all whom the Father has given Him because He came down from heaven to do the Father’s will (6:38).

John 6:38: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” Jesus bases the success of His mission not on whether or not people respond to Him, but rather on the fact that He came down from heaven (John 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58), where He shared the glory of the Father (17:5), to do the Father’s will, which is absolutely certain. If any whom the Father gave to the Son do not make it to heaven, it would mean either that Jesus was incapable of performing what the Father commanded Him to do or that He was flagrantly disobedient, both of which are unthinkable (Carson, p. 291). But what is the Father’s will?

C. The will of the Father who sent Jesus is that of all that He has given Him, He lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day (6:39).

John 6:39: “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” “The last day” is a phrase that occurs only in John (5:28, 29; 11:24; 12:48). It means that Jesus will keep us until we’re in heaven. Morris states (ibid., p. 368), “This thought is of the greatest comfort to believers. Their assurance is based not on their feeble hold on Christ, but on His sure grip of them.”

You may wonder, “What about Judas or what about the disciples in John 6:66 who turned away from Jesus?” The answer is, they never truly believed in Jesus. In John 17:12, Jesus prays with reference to the twelve, “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.” There are many like the seed sown on the stony ground or the thorny ground, who spring up and at first look genuine, but when trials and temptations hit, they wither and die (Matt. 13:20-21). They never truly believed in Christ. But those to whom Jesus gives eternal life will never perish (John 10:28).

D. To sum up, the will of the Father is that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life and Jesus will raise him up on the last day (6:40).

John 6:40 sums up what Jesus has been saying: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Again, this is a staggering claim that Jesus has already made (5:28-29), that He will raise us from the dead on the last day so that we will be with Him forever.

Note that rather than referring to those whom He will raise up as those whom the Father has given to Him, here Jesus goes back to the invitation mode of 6:35. There it was “he who comes to Me” and “he who believes in Me.” Here, it is “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him.” “To behold” implies knowledge of who Jesus is. You can’t believe in one you know nothing about. John wrote this gospel to show us who Jesus is—the Christ, the Son of God—so that we may believe in His name and have eternal life (20:31). It’s interesting that none other than John Calvin (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], p. 254) here calls “madmen” those who seek salvation in what he calls “the whirlpool of predestination,” rather than by faith in Christ. He’s saying, to be saved, don’t probe into whether or not you’re one of the elect. Rather, focus on answering the question, “Who is Jesus?” and on the basis of the apostolic witness, put your trust in Him.

Conclusion

Some preachers do not teach on God’s sovereignty over our salvation because they say that it’s too controversial or divisive. Some argue that these doctrines are just theoretical theology that have no relevance for how we live. I’ve heard seminary professors say that you should never talk about the doctrine of election with unbelievers, because it will drive them away from Christ.

Yet here Jesus speaks plainly about election as He confronts these unbelievers (He will do it again in 10:26). The thought that you may not be one of God’s elect should drive you in panic to believe in Jesus! Also, God’s sovereign election is a comforting doctrine for us who truly believe in Jesus because it’s the foundation for our eternal security. Jesus will keep all whom the Father has given Him. His mission will not fail.

God’s sovereign election the only doctrine that produces true humility in us as we give all glory to God, who graciously saves unworthy sinners (1 Cor. 1:18-31). The doctrine of election encourages us to share the gospel even with immoral, idolatrous “Corinthians” (Acts 18:9-10), because God will save all whom He has purposed to save. And, Jesus’ words here give comfort to preachers who preach on God’s sovereignty, only to have people leave the church, which I hope that none of you will do!

Application Questions

1. Some say that the doctrine of election discourages evangelism and missions. Why is this false? What Scriptures refute it?
2. Some argue that if sinners can’t believe by their own free will, it is mockery to encourage them to believe. What Scriptures refute this error?
3. Since some (like Judas or those in John 6:66) seem to be saved for a while and then fall away, how can we know that our faith in Christ is the real thing?
4. Should we assure a professing Christian who is living in sin that he is eternally secure in Christ? Why/why not? Which Scriptures give guidance on this?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2013, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

This is one of several occasional essays on “Scripture Twisting.”  The purpose of these very brief essays is to challenge certain popular interpretations of the Bible that really have little or no basis.

Matthew 22:39 reads simply, “A second [command] is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  In popular circles this verse is often paraded as a text which teaches that we are commanded to love ourselves.  Thus, the implied meaning is, “You shall love your neighbor just as you are to love yourself.”  Such a view seems to have come from secular psychologists (in which self-actualization is at the top of the pecking order of one’s goals).  From there, it apparently made its way into Christian psychological treatises. 

Our objective in this short essay is not to trace the history of this interpretation, but to argue that it is fallacious.  Unpacking the meaning of the verse yields the following expanded translation: “You shall love your neighbor as you already do love yourself.”  Thus, self-love is assumed in this text, not commanded. 

There are two reasons for arguing that this is the meaning of the text here.  First, a comparison normally sets up a standard or norm against which some position is put forth.  The Greek particle ὡς is the primary means used to suggest such a comparison in the New Testament (and is used in Matt 22:39).  For example, in Matt 12:13, Jesus healed a man’s hand, “making it whole, like the other one.”  The whole hand was the standard against which the now healed hand was measured.  In Matt 17:2, Jesus’ face “shone like (ὡς) the sun.”  Obviously, the sun is the standard by which the comparison is to be made.  In Matt 28:4, the soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus “became like dead men” when they saw the angel.  In Rom 9:27, the number of the sons of Israel is to be “like (ὡς) the sands of the sea.”  In 2 Tim 2:9 Paul says that he is wearing chains “like (ὡς) a criminal.”  First Peter 1:24 says that “all flesh is like (ὡς) grass.”  In all these texts (and scores of others in the NT) a comparison is made.  In each one, the comparison starts with a standard or norm.  But if Matt 22:39 implies two commands, then there is no standard of comparison.  To argue that we should love our neighbor as much as we should love ourselves sets up no standard, no norm. 

Second, and more specifically, ὡς is sometimes found following a command.  When it is so, what verb is to be implied in the ὡς clause?  At all times, the indicative should be read.¹  That is, the comparison is not of a command to a command, but of a command to a standard that is already being followed.  Note the following examples.² 

• Matt 6:5—”When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites [are]”
• Matt 6:10—”May your will be done on earth as [it is] in heaven”
• Matt 6:12—”When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites [do]”
• Matt 10:16—”Be wise as serpents [are], and harmless as doves [are]”
• Matt 18:3—”become like children [are]”
• Luke 15:19—”treat me as [you would] one of your hired servants”
• Luke 22:26—”let the greatest among you become like the youngest”
• Gal 4:12—”Become as [I am]”
• 2 Thess 3:15—”Do not look on him as [you would] an enemy, but regard him as a brother”
• 1 Tim 5:1—”Rebuke an older man as [you would] a father”
• Philemon 17—”Receive him as [you would receive] me”

In conclusion, is self-love biblical?  Actually, yes.  It is biblical in that it is assumed to be true (cf. Eph 5:29).  But is self-love commanded?  Hardly.  The primary proof-text for such is Matt 22:39.³  And, as we have tried to demonstrate, that text means that self-love is assumed, not commanded.  Further, there are numerous texts that suggest that our lives need to be other-directed.  The plain meaning of a passage like Phil 2:3 (“regard one another as more important than yourselves”) ought to counter-balance any notion that our focus in life ought to be on self.  The example of the Lord Jesus follows this programmatic statement in Phil 2:3.  In vv 6-11 Jesus is seen as the supreme example of self-sacrifice.  Verse 5 links Jesus’ attitude to what should be our own: “Have this mind in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus.”  We, too, should follow the Master’s steps and direct our lives outward and upward.

Such absorption with the self is both endemic to human nature and in particular is becoming the hallmark of the West.  We are propelling ourselves rapidly to narcissism and anarchy because of such attitudes.  Against this, the Bible speaks plainly.

---

¹ Not infrequently, the verb is actually stated.  The indicative is the routine mood found.  Cf. Matt 5:48 ("be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"); 6:12 ("forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors"); 8:13; 15:28; 18:33; 27:65; Col 3:18; Rev 18:6; etc.

² You might even want to test these examples by supplying an imperative or subjunctive in the ὡς clause.  For example, in Matt 6:5, "When you pray do not be like the hypocrites should be."  Obviously, this makes little sense.

³ Ephesians 5:33 has a similar construction and should be interpreted similarly.  "Husbands, love your wives as yourselves" does not mean"love your wives as you should love yourselves," but "as you already do love yourselves."

I. Porque Hay Tantas Versiones?

Como dice la canción “Romper con alguien es difícil,”. Ma Bell lo hizo—creando un exceso de compañías a larga distancia casi tan numerosas como sus marcas de desodorante.

La Biblia lo hizo, también. Antes del año 1881 usted podía leer cualquier versión que quisiera –siempre y cuando fuera la Versión King James. Pero desde 1881, una veintena de nuevas traducciones había sido impresa.

¿Cómo King James fue destronado? ¿Cuál traducción es la mejor ahora? ¿Son cualesquiera de las traducciones modernas realmente fieles al original? Estas son algunas de las preguntas que estaremos tratando en este ensayo. Pero inicialmente, nos gustaría dar un vistazo de pájaro. Queremos simplemente responder a la pregunta, “¿Porque hay tantas versiones de la Biblia?”

Hay  tres influencias básicas las cuales han dado origen a una multitud de traducciones.

Primero, en 1881 dos intelectuales Británicos publicaron el Nuevo Testamento Griego el cual se basó en el manuscrito más antiguo que entonces se encontraba disponible. Este texto, hecho por  Brook Foss Westcott y Fenton John Anthony Hort, tuvo varias divergencias notables con relación al texto que usaron los traductores de la versión King James. En su mayor parte, el texto de Westcott y Hort fue un Nuevo Testamento  mas corto. Esto fue así porque los manuscritos mas viejos (MSS) los cuales ellos utilizaron no contenían pasajes tales como el final mas largo del evangelio de Marcos o la historia de la mujer sorprendida en adulterio. El MSS Griego que siguieron los traductores de la King James siguieron incluían estos y algunos otros pasajes.

Al mismo tiempo que el texto de Westcott y Hort hizo su debut, apareció la Versión Inglesa Revisada del Nuevo Testamento. Una nueva era había nacido en la cual las traducciones del Nuevo Testamento ahora utilizaban los pocos MSS antiguos en Griego en lugar de los muchos mas tempraneros que existían.

Segundo, desde 1895 muchos descubrimientos arqueológicos y de manuscritos habían sido realizados los cuales habían pronunciado juicio sobre algunas de las traducciones encontradas en la King James. El descubrimiento individual más importante fue el del papiro Egipcio. En 1895, Adolf Deissmann publicó un volumen, dándole el humilde titulo, Estudios Bíblicos (Bibelstudien), el cual revolucionó la erudición del Nuevo Testamento. Deissmann descubrió que los restos de este papiro antiguo, enterrado en basureros en Egipto desde hace 2000 años,  contenían un Griego que era muy similar al Griego del NT.  Él concluyó que el Griego del NT fue escrito en el lenguaje común de la época.  No fue en el dialecto que solamente la mayor elite podía entender. Desde el descubrimiento de Deissmann’s, los traductores se han esforzado en poner el del NT en un lenguaje que las personas promedio pueden entender – tal como fue originalmente la intención. No solamente eso sino que el papiro nos ha ayudado a entender muchas palabras – palabras las cuales solamente eran conjeturadas por los traductores de la King James.

Finalmente, han habido influencias filosóficas. O sea que, la teoría de la traducción esta siendo renovada en la actualidad. Los misioneros han hecho una significativa contribución hacia esta finalidad – porque ellos están deseosos de ver a una tribu en particular leer la Biblia en su propio lenguaje.

Estas tres diferencias --textual, informativa, filosófica – han sido los padres de una nueva generación de traducciones de la Biblia. Pero ¿Son estas traducciones buenas? ¿Son mejores que la King James?

En lo que resta del ensayo, examinaremos cada una de estas influencias y entonces, finalmente, trataremos de ver cual traducción es mejor.

II. El Texto de Las Modernas Traducciones

¿Adónde se fueron todos esos versículos? Las traducciones modernas parecen haber cortado muchas de las más preciosas líneas de la Escritura. Ellas terminan el evangelio de Marcos en el versículo 8 del capítulo 16; ellas omiten la referencia al ángel del Señor agitando las aguas en la piscina de Betesda (versículo 4 de Juan 5); y, mas notablemente, ellos remueven la historia de la mujer sorprendida en adulterio en Juan 8.

Además de las omisiones, estas versiones modernas hacen cambios significativos en el texto. Por ejemplo, en 1 Timoteo 3:16, en la King James se lee, “Dios fue manifestado en la carne,” pero en la mayoría de las traducciones modernas se lee, “Él fue manifestado en la carne” En Apocalipsis  22:19 la versión  King James habla acerca del  “libro de la vida” mientras que virtualmente todas las traducciones modernas hablan del “árbol de vida.” En conjunto, hay cientos de cambios textuales entre la King James y las modernas traducciones.

En este breve ensayo nosotros no podemos determinar quien tiene la razón. Pero podemos hacer unas cuantas observaciones.

Primero, los cambios textuales en las traducciones modernas no afectan ninguna doctrina mayor. La deidad de Cristo, el nacimiento virginal, la salvación solamente por gracia –y todo el resto—están todavía intactas. Aunque ciertos pasajes están omitidos o cambiados, no es así con las doctrinas. Hay evangélicos que prefieren la  King James y hay algunos evangélicos que prefieren traducciones modernas.

Segundo, los cambios textuales en estas modernas traducciones están basados en los mas antiguos MSS del NT en Griego. Estos MSS datan de muy temprano en el segundo siglo AC.  Pero el texto Griego que esta detrás de King James pertenece a un grupo de MSS –llamado el texto Bizantino—los cuales son mucho mas recientes. Por otro lado, aunque estos MSS son mas recientes, estos comprenden al menos el 80% de los 5000+ MSS  del NT que nosotros tenemos al presente. Teóricamente es posible que, en ocasiones, estos MSS apunten a una tradición mas temprana también.

Tercero, el NT de la King James no siempre sigue a la mayoría de MSS. En realidad el texto Griego que esta detrás de la King James fue basado solamente sobre media docena de MSS. Ahora paso justamente que estos MSS pertenecían al texto Bizantino. Pero en algunas ocasiones había vacíos. Y el compilador (un hombre llamado Erasmo) tuvo que llenar esos vacíos traduciendo el Latín del NT de regreso al Griego.  Hay, por lo tanto, algunas lecturas en la King James – tales como el libro de la vida’ en Ap. 22:19 o la redacción de 1 Juan 5:7-8, las cuales no se encuentran ni en la mayoría de MSS ni en los MSS más antiguos. Ningún estudiante serio de la Biblia los llamaría originales (aunque muchos maestros populares de la Biblia lo hacen.)

Cuarto, la acusación de que entre más antiguos son los MSS o los hombres que los adoptan es mas no-ortodoxos es una acusación deficiente. Es verdad que en ciertos lugares los MSS antiguos no afirman explícitamente la deidad de Cristo –tal como en 1 Ti 3:16. ¡Pero tampoco la niegan! ¡Además de esto,  en algunos pasajes estos MSS antiguos hacen explícita la Deidad de Cristo donde la King James no lo hace! En Juan 1:18, las versiones modernas leen “el único Dios” mientras que la King James dice “el único Hijo engendrado.” Adicionalmente, la mayoría de estudiosos evangélicos aceptan este texto critico. ¡Aun el hombre que editó la Nueva Biblia de Referencia Scofield de la versión  King James favorece personalmente el texto critico!

Quinto, al mismo tiempo, hay algunos estudiosos ahora que son fuertes mediadores del texto Bizantino –los mas notables son, Zane Hodges y Arthur Farstad. Juntos ellos editaron  El Griego del Nuevo Testamento de Acuerdo al Texto mayoritario y el Dr. Farstad fue también el editor principal de la Biblia Nueva King James. De tal  modo, que es posible ser inteligente y aun así adoptar el texto Bizantino, así como es posible ser evangélico y adoptar el texto crítico moderno. (Yo estoy en desacuerdo con el texto resultante que Farstad y Hodges han producido,¹ pero respeto su erudición.)

Finalmente, nosotros debemos renunciar a estar etiquetándonos el uno al otro como herejes o idiotas en la discusión que esta en curso. Necesitamos ser caritativos en ambos lados. Uno de mis profesores universitarios decía frecuentemente, “¡El ejercito Cristiano es el único ejercito en el mundo que mata a sus heridos!” Desafortunadamente, esto es especialmente verdad cuando se trata de traducciones de la Biblia.

III. Deissmann y el Papiro

En 1895 un pastor Alemán de nombre Adolf Deissmann publicó un mas bien inocente y sonoro volumen: Estudios Bíblicos. Sin embargo, este sencillo volumen inició una revolución en la erudición del NT – una revolución en la cual el hombre común fue el ganador.

Alrededor del año 1800 Deissmann comenzó a leer los MSS Griegos antiguos. Pero no a los grande autores clásicos. Él leyó cartas privadas, transacciones de negocios, recibos, contratos de matrimonio. ¿Qué son estos documentos? Meramente retazos de papiros (el antiguo precursor del papel) encontrados en basureros Egipcios de 2,000 años de antigüedad. ¡En estos papiros aparentemente insignificantes, Deissmann descubrió una  clave para descubrir el NT! Porque estos papiros contenían el lenguaje Griego común del primer siglo AC. Ellos fueron escritos en el vocabulario del NT.

¿Que es tan revolucionario acerca de esto? Podría usted preguntarse. Es revolucionario porque hasta 1895, los eruditos bíblicos no tenían paralelos reales del lenguaje del NT. Ellos a menudo veían este Griego como si fuera  inventado por el Espiritu Santo. Lo llamaban “El Griego del Espíritu Santo” Realmente es verdad  que las ideas—aun las palabras—fueron inspiradas por el Espiritu Santo. Pero otras cosa es decir que el lenguaje del NT fue inusual – que su gramática y su vocabulario fueron, en una sola palabra, únicos. Si esto fuera verdad, solamente la elite espiritual podría esperar entender el NT.

El descubrimiento de Deissmann explotó la burbuja sobre esta visión: el Griego del NT fue escrito en el lenguaje del hombre común.

Hay dos implicaciones derivadas de lo que Deissmann hizo por las traducciones de la Biblia:

Primero, si los apóstoles escribieron en términos fáciles de entender, entonces las traducciones de la Biblia deben reflejar ese sentir. No debemos traducir con altisonantes palabras religiosas si el original no fue escrito de esa manera. Por ejemplo, la palabra “propiciación” en la King James, significa básicamente “satisfacción”—o sea, que Dios esta satisfecho con el pago de nuestros pecados a través de Jesucristo. La palabra final de Nuestro Señor en la cruz, “esta terminado,” ha sido encontrada en papiros de documentos de negocios—en recibos, si usted quiere. Significa “totalmente pagado.”

En otras palabras, las traducciones de la Biblia necesitan ser claras. Una de las pruebas obvias de esto es que el evangelio  ofende a las personas. ¡Y no puede ser ofensivo a menos que sea entendido!

Segundo, los descubrimientos del papiro nos han ayudado a entender palabras las cuales los traductores de la King James meramente especularon. Por ejemplo, en la versión King James de Juan 3:16, la palabra Griega traducida “el único engendrado” realmente significa “el único.” La Biblia, entonces, no dice entonces que Jesús fue el Hijo engendrado de Dios –lo cual pudiera sugerir que él tuvo un comienzo –sino que él es el único Hijo de Dios.

Pero hay otra implicación en los descubrimientos del papiro, aunque no relacionados a las traducciones de la Biblia. Mas bien, se relaciona con la predicación. Los predicadores de la Palabra de Dios necesitan hacerse entender a sí mismos. Como uno de mis profesores en el seminario era aficionado a decir, “¡No hemos sido llamados a alimentar jirafas –hemos sido llamados a alimentar ovejas!” Esto no significa que un sermón debe ser desordenado o inexacto –solamente que debe ser claro.

Deissmann ha hecho un servicio tanto a los doctos como a los legos. La ha mostrado que el lenguaje del NT era comprensible para el hombre común de la calle. La cosa irónica es que cuando la Biblia King James fue publicada inicialmente en 1611,¡fue condenada por muchos porque era muy fácil de entender! Pero después de 400 años, el idioma Ingles ha cambiado. Yo, por ejemplo, invito a las nuevas traducciones porque llevan el evangelio de Nuevo a la gente.

IV. Equivalencia Dinamica Vrs. Equivalencia Formal

La mayoría de los legos en nuestros días piensan que una fiel traducción de la Biblia significa una traducción palabra-por-palabra. Si el original tiene un nombre, ellos esperan un nombre en la traducción. Si el original tiene dieciséis palabras, ellos no quieren ver diecisiete palabras en la traducción. Llamaremos a esto traducción por “equivalencia formal.” La versión King James, la Estándar Americana, y la Nueva Estándar Americana están cerca de este ideal.

Por otro lado el espectro es una traducción  “frase por frase”, o una traducción de equivalencia  dinámica. No esta tan preocupada por la forma gramatical del lenguaje original como por el significado del original. Una traducción de equivalencia dinámica es mas interpretativa – pero también mas fácil de entender. La Nueva Versión Internacional (en parte) y la Nueva Biblia Inglesa siguen esta filosofía.

Realmente, cualquiera que alguna vez halla aprendido una segunda lengua sabe que una traducción palabra por palabra es imposible siempre o casi la mayoría de las veces. Los modismos del lenguaje tienen que ser parafraseados. Aun los traductores de la King James se dieron cuanta de esto. En un par de lugares en el AT, el texto hebreo dice literalmente, “las fosas nasales de Dios se dilataron”. Pero la King James tiene algo parecido, “Dios se enojó”—que es lo que la traducción  significa. En Mateo 1:18 la King James dice que Maria fue hallada con Niño. Pero el Griego es muy diferente—y muy grafico: “¡Maria lo tenia en el vientre” Y en muchos lugares en las cartas de Pablo, la King James dice, “Que Dios no lo permita!” Pero el original no tiene ni el nombre “Dios” ni “prohibir.” Literalmente, dice, “¡Que nunca sea así!” (como la mayoría de las traducciones modernas lo traducen).

Así que, cuando hablamos de  fidelidad en la traducción, necesitamos clarificar la cuestión: ¿Fidelidad a la  forma? ¿o fidelidad al significado? Algunas veces la fidelidad a una involucra la falta de fidelidad a la otra. Hay problemas con cualquiera de estas. La King James, con su frustrada fidelidad a la forma, carece de sentido en  algunos pasajes. ¡Y en 1611 ellos no tuvieron de sentido! La Nueva Estándar Americana, igualmente, es a menudo caracterizada por tener un estilo Ingles rígido.

Por otro lado, los traductores de  la equivalencia algunas veces son demasiado interpretativos. La NIV, en Ef  6:6, dice a los esclavos “Obedezcan a (sus amos) no solamente para ganar su favor. . . ,” pero la palabra “solamente” no esta en el Griego y yo sospecho que Pablo no quiso implicarlo, tampoco. Esto revela uno de los problemas con los traductores de las traducciones de equivalencia dinámica: los traductores no siempre saben si su interpretación es correcta.

Pero algunas versiones no interpretan--distorsionan. Algunas son notorias por omitir referencias a la sangre de Cristo, o por atentar negar su deidad. En estas instancias, los traductores no son ni fieles a la forma ni al significado. Ellos han  pervertido la Palabra de Dios.

Sin embargo, los traductores de equivalencia dinámica que son honestos con el texto a menudo hacen las cosas muy claras. En Fil 2:6, por ejemplo, la NIV nos dice que Jesús fue “Dios en (su) propia naturaleza.” Pero la mayoría de las traducciones de equivalencia formal establecen que él fue en  forma de Dios. El problema con estas traducciones formalmente correctas es que son engañosas: la palabra Griega que se usa para ‘forma’ aquí significa esencia o naturaleza.

Equivalencia dinámica versus equivalencia formal: dos diferentas filosofías de traducción. Una traducción de equivalencia formal deja que el lector interprete por sí mismo. Pero demasiado a  menudo, el lector promedio no tiene el fundamento o las herramientas para interpretar exactamente. El resultado neto es que él a menudo malentiende el texto.

Por otro lado, una traducción de equivalencia dinámica es usualmente clara y muy comprensible. Pero si los traductores han perdido el punto del original –ya sea con o sin intención—ellos estarán comunicando una idea extraña al texto bíblico.

Hay pros y contras en cada filosofía de traducción. En la siguiente sección,  veremos cuales traducciones han hecho los mejores trabajos.

V. ¿Cuál es la Mejor Traduccion?

En este ensayo hemos estado viendo a las diferencias en las traducciones de la Biblia. Hemos visto que el texto Griego que esta detrás del NT en la King James es diferente del texto Griego que esta detrás de la mayoría de las modernas traducciones. Hemos vistos que el descubrimiento del papiro al inicio de siglo ha arrojado mucha luz sobre el significado de las palabras bíblicas. Y hemos encontrado que las  que las traducciones de la Biblia, mayormente, son traducciones palabra por palabra o frase por frase y que ambas tienen pros y contras. Ahora queremos mirar brevemente a cinco o seis traducciones populares y discutir su valor.

Pero antes de que veamos estas traducciones, me gustaría hacer tres comentarios generales. Primero, que usted puede pensar que no hay esperanza de saber lo que la Palabra de dios realmente dice. ¡Hay tantas traducciones que se leen tan diferente! ¿Cómo puede alguien quien no conoce Griego o Hebreo realmente saber lo que la Biblia dice? Yo estoy convencido personalmente que el Espiritu Santo reina sobre aun las peores traducciones. Aun en traducciones extremadamente polarizadas o sectarias, todas las doctrinas mayores pueden ser encontradas. ¡Y si usted sabe cuales traducciones son las mejores, usted se sentirá mejor!

Segundo, una de las mejores seguridades que usted puede seguir es mantenerse alejado de las traducciones sectarias o de aquellas que han sido hechas por solo un individuo. La traducción del Nuevo Mundo, de los testigos de Jehová, es la traducción sectaria mejor conocida. Hablaremos acerca de esta traducción un poco mas adelante. Las traducciones hechas por individuos incluyen la de Moffatt, la de Weymoutt, la de J. B. Phillips, la Living Bible, la Traducción Ampliada de Kenneth Wuest, y el Nuevo Testamento de Berkley. Con seguridad, hay mucho merito en cada una de estas—especialmente en las ultimas cuatro. Pero las idiosincrasias y polarizaciones teológicas de una traducción son mucho mas claras cuando han sido producidas por un solo hombre.

Tercero, para responder a la pregunta “¿cual traducción es mejor?”, no hay una sola respuesta. Sugiero que cada Cristiano que es serio en estudiar la Biblia posea al menos dos traducciones. Debe tener al menos una traducción de equivalencia dinámica (o frase por frase) y una traducción de equivalencia formal  (o sea traducción de palabra por palabra. )De hecho, seria mejor tener dos traducciones de equivalencia dinámica –porque en este tipo de traducción, el traductor es el interprete. Si su interpretación es correcta, solamente clarificara el significado del texto; si es incorrecta, ¡entonces solamente clarifica la interpretación del traductor. !

Ahora, a las traducciones.

Version King James

La Biblia King James ha sido con razón llamada, “el mas noble monumento del la prosa Inglesa” (prefacio de la RSV. Sobre todos sus rivales, la versión King James ha tenido el impacto mas grande en dar forma al lenguaje Ingles. Es una obre maestra de la literatura. Pero, para que nadie desee reverenciarla porque” fue suficientemente buena para San Pablo” o alguna insensatez parecida, debemos recordar que la Biblia King James de nuestros días no es la King James de 1611. Ha pasado por tres revisiones, incorporando mas de 100,000 cambios! Además, hay mas de 300 palabras en la King James que ya no significan lo que significaban en 1611. Si alguien quiere usar una Biblia que sigue los mismos textos griegos y Hebreos que la King James, Yo recomiendo la  Versión Nueva King James.²

La Version Estandar Revisada

La RSV se completó en 1952 e intento ser, en parte, una revisión de la King James. Por supuesto, usa los antiguos MSS del NT, lo que resulta en la omisión de varios versículos y palabras. Pero la redacción fue todavía arcaica. La RSV intenta ser una traducción palabra por palabra cuando es posible. La NRSV sigue los mismos principios de traducción, aunque ahora ha sido mas “inclusive en el genero” en su aproximación. A veces esto es muy  útil; otras veces confunde.

La Nueva Estandar Americana

La NASB es algo así como una contraparte evangélica de la  RSV. También intento ser algo así como una revisión de la King James. Hay tres diferencias mayores entre la  RSV y la  NASB: primero, la  NASB es menos arcaica en su redacción. Segundo, sus traductores fueron mas conservadores que los traductores de la  RSV. Tercero, porque debido al deseo de los traductores de adherirse tan cercanamente a la redacción del original, a menudo esta traducción tiene fundamento. La  NASB es probablemente la mejor traducción palabra por palabra disponible en neutros días. 

La Nueva Biblia Inglesa

La NEB fue completada en 1971, después de un cuarto de siglo de labor. Establece un hecho memorable en la traducción: no es una revisión sino una nueva traducción totalmente nueva. Es una traducción frase por frase. Desafortunadamente, algunas veces las polarizaciones de los traductores aparecen en el texto. La  REB (Biblia Inglesa Revisada) sigue en mismo patrón: excelente Inglés, aunque no siempre fiel al Griego y al Hebreo.

New International Version

La Nueva Versión Internacional (NIV) fue publicada en 1978. Puede considerarse una contraparte de la NEB. Es mas una traducción frase por frase que una traducción palabra por palabra, y los intelectuales fueron generalmente mas conservadores que aquellos que trabajaron en la NEB. Yo la considero personalmente la mejor traducción frase por frase que esta disponible en nuestros días. Sin embargo, su mayor falla esta en la simplicidad del lenguaje. Los editores quisieron asegurarse que fuera fácil de leer. Para lograr este objetivo ellos sacrificaron a menudo la exactitud (en particular, en el NT, las oraciones han sido acortadas, la subordinación al pensamiento se ha perdido, y se han eliminado las conjunciones.

New World Translation

Finalmente, debemos decir una palabra acerca de la Traducción del Nuevo Mundo de los Testigos de Jehová. Debido a la polarización sectaria del grupo, así como de la carencia de una erudición bíblica genuina, yo creo que la Traducción del Nuevo Mundo es la peor traducción en Ingles. Intenta ser palabra por palabra, y en la mayoría de los casos es sumisamente literal al punto de tener un Ingles terrible. Pero, irónicamente,  cada vez que una vaca sagrada es aniquilada por los mismos escritores bíblicos, los Testigos de Jehová cambian el texto y recurren a un tipo de traducción interpretativo. En breve, combina los contras de ambos métodos, y ninguno de los pros. 

En resumen, yo sugeriría que cada Cristiano que habla Ingles posea al menos una  NASB o una RSV y una  NIV. Así mismo, seria valioso poseer una King James y aun una Nueva Biblia Inglesa. Y entonces, de seguro que usted leerá el libro!

Epílogo

Hay una traducción reciente que aun no ha sido completada, pero esta disponible en parte en el sitio web de la Fundación de Estudios Bíblicos. La Biblia NET (o Nueva Traducción Inglesa) tiene todas las señales de una gran traducción. Cuando esté terminada, podría ser mas exacta que la  NASB, mas legible que la NIV, y mas elegante que ambas. Adicionalmente, las notas son una genuina mina de oro para información, a diferencia de aquellas que se encuentran en cualquier otra traducción. ¡Yo recomendaría altamente que los Cristianos que hablan Inglés coloquen esta Biblia en su lista de compras en cuanto este completa. !

---

¹ Ver mi ensayo “El Texto Mayoritario y el Texto Original: ¿Son Ellos Identicos?” (colocado en el sitio web de la  Biblical Studies Foundation ).

² Sin embargo, como mencione antes, pienso que hay graves defectos en este texto.