2 Cor 5:17 in the TNIV: Problem and Suggested Solution(s)
More than a decade ago, using the great Navigator Topical Memory System, I put to memory 2 Cor 5:17 in the NASB:
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature;
the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."
Recently I came across this verse in the TNIV, which words 2 Cor 5:17 like this: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" I have to admit that I'm less than enthused over this rendering. In the effort to be gender-accurate, I feel the translators may have inadvertently blurred the connection between the person who is in Christ and that person being a new creation.
The concept in 2 Cor 5: 17 is simple: the person in Christ = a new creation. When I read the TNIV's "...if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come..." I wonder if if this rendering is clear enough in expressing the idea that the person in Christ IS a new creation?
Now, I should stop and be perfectly clear. If you've read my blog in the past, you will know that I wholeheartedly endorse the TNIV and feel that the controversy surrounding it is by and large a controversy of misunderstanding. Also, as I have explained before, I have no problem with gender-inclusiveness when handled responsibly in contexts relating to both males and females. Further, no translation is perfect, so if I find a particular verse in which I don't care for the wording, it shouldn't be taken as a reflection on the whole translation.
And most importantly, the current wording of 2 Cor 5:17 in the TNIV accurately reflects the Greek New Testament:
ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά·
What you'll notice back up in the NASB is that "he is" is in italics because these words are not reflected in the Greek, but certainly assumed. The Greek literally reads, "Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, a new creation." In fact, καινὴ κτίσις ("new creation") is even in the nominative case which in English is often placed at the beginning of a sentence, but here is functioning as the apodosis to the conditional phrase, ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ ("if anyone is in Christ"). But I still don't like it. I want the reader to be clear that if a person is in Christ, then that person IS a new creation.
One thing I note, however, is that 2 Cor 5:17 is a rather difficult verse to make reflect gender-accuracy. Look, for instance, at attempts from other translations:
HCSB: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come."
NLT1: "What this means is that those who become Christians become new persons. They are not the same anymore, for the old life is gone. A new life has begun!"
NLT2: "This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!"
NRSV: "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!"
REB: "For anyone united to Christ, there is a new creation: the old order has gone; a new order has already begun. "
The use of "there is" in the HCSB, NRSV, and REB instead of the traditional "he is" feels a bit awkward grammatically in my opinion and although stronger than the TNIV, is still not as clear in the equation as I want it to be. The NLT2 certainly seems to be an improvement on the NLT1, although some will continue to prefer the use of "creation" over "person" to emphasize the spiritual transformation that God brings about when an individual finds salvation in Christ.*
It is certainly no secret that after introducing a new version of the Bible, often a modest revision will quietly be release sometime afterwards. For instance, the NIV was completed in 1978, but the version you would buy off the shelf today was actually published in 1984. And the ESV, first published in 2001 is gradually being replaced by a revised text over the course of the next few months.
There are two solutions available to the TNIV translators if they wanted to improve 2 Cor 5:17 for some possible modest revision in the future. First, they could take a nod from the God's Word Translation, which in my personal opinion offers the BEST inclusive rendering of this verse I've seen:
"Whoever is a believer in Christ is a new creation.
The old way of living has disappeared. A new way of living has come into existence."
Obviously the TNIV Committee on Translation could render 2 Cor 5:17 similar to the GWT. However, when I first wrote this post, I noted that the translators had one other means in their translational tool belt, that frankly, I was surprised they did not use in this verse. Now I know why.
As I mentioned above, personally, I don't have a problem with gender-accurate translation when it's responsibly done. To me, this is translation philosophy and not actually controversial at all. Instead, in my opinion, the only truly controversial aspect of the TNIV is its use of the so-called "singular they." Now, I'll admit that it's been difficult for this former English major to come around on the use of a plural pronoun like "they" to refer to a singular antecedent as it's done in the TNIV's rendering of Rev 3:20,
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me."
But I'm coming around on it because I recognize our language is changing. And now that I've trained my ear to listen for it, I hear people from all walks of life and with all levels of education use a singular they when they speak, even those who have announced themselves opposed to the TNIV. Further, as it was gently pointed out to me, the singular they has recently become a topic of discussion in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002).
So I wondered why the TNIV translators didn't simply use a singular they in this verse? Thus, the TNIV version of 2 Cor 5:7 could read:
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation:
The old has gone, the new is here!"
To me, this seemed like the perfect solution. It's simple and it makes the equation clear. Or does it? After reading a response in the comments, I was reminded why translations are often best done by committees and not sole individuals. The commenter pointed out that my new rendering could just as easily be misread so that the "they" might refer to a union of Christ and the believer together becoming a new creation.
Now we could certainly speak of the union between Christ and believers (Rom 6:3; Eph 2:6), which is part of what it means to be "in Christ." However, that still misses Paul's designation of the believer as a new creation and would almost be like saying, "the one who is in Christ is in Christ." I now understand why the CBT did not go with a singular they in this verse.
Going back to the drawing board, I want to revisit the rendering of the GWT which, as I said, was the best inclusive reading of 2 Cor 5:17 I have read so far. Taking a nod from another translation is nothing new. No translation is ever produced in a vacuum, and a careful reader can often see when new renderings get picked up from one translation and passed on to others. Therefore I would suggest a second solution combining aspects of the phrasing in the GWT with the simplicity of the TNIV:
"Whoever is in Christ is a new creation:
The old is gone, the new is here!"
or
"Whoever is a believer in Christ is a new creation:
The old has gone, the new is here!"
Comments and alternative solutions are welcome.
*A separate issue entirely relates to the phrasing "in Christ," itself, and perhaps I may come back to this on another day. To be "in Christ" is a concept that occurs throughout the New Testament, especially in Paul's writings. This concept is essential for understanding the believer's relationship to the Messiah, and the believer's role in the Kingdom of God. One could question though whether or not a contemporary reader might misunderstand what it means to be IN Christ, or worse read that as locality rather than as union. The NLT2 attempts to overcome this misunderstanding by using the phrase, "belongs to Christ." While I like this rendering, I don't know if the REB doesn't communicate it better with "united to Christ."
I've changed my mind on this issue. See my follow-up post: "2 Cor 5:17 (TNIV) Revisited: I Recant."