2 Cor 5:17 (TNIV) Revisited: I Recant
NIV: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"
TNIV: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"
My initial hunch was that the TNIV translation committee, in their desire for gender-accuracy, simply ended up with a rendering that was less than desirable.
Not so.
Although I could defend the TNIV from a standpoint of the Greek NT, I felt that a connection was lost between the person "in Christ" and a person becoming "a new creation."
Through discussion in my the previous blog's comments, reflection on and off today over this issue, and a little bit of research that I probably should have done in the first place, I have a completely different conclusion: The TNIV's rendering of 2 Cor 5:17 is completely accurate (translationally and theologically) and has NOTHING to do with gender issues.
Rather, upon uniting with Christ (becoming "in Christ") through a salvation experience, the believer is not merely transformed, but becomes part of a larger new order, or new creation, initiated by God. Although there is truth in the individual becoming a new creation, this--evidently--is not the emphasis of the verse. Two comments on this verse are worth repeating below. The first is by Ralph P. Martin in the Word Biblical Commentary on 2 Corinthians, p. 152:
ἐν Χριστῷ governs the expression καινὴ κτίσις, "new creation," not τις, "anyone." So it is less than correct to interpret the v as describing a person's conversion after the analogy of new birth (John 3:3, 5, 7) ... The accent falls on a person ( τις ) entering the new order in Christ, thus making the καινὴ κτίσις an eschatological term for God's age of salvation (Bultmann, Theology 1, 306-308) ... Paul is talking of a "new act of creation," not an individual's renovation as a proselyte or a forgiven sinner in the Day of Atonement service. There is even an ontological dimension to Paul's thought (so Stuhlmacher, "Erwägungen"), suggesting that with Christ's coming a new chapter in cosmic relations to God opened and reversed the catastrophic effect of Adam's fall which began the old creation (Kümmel, 205). To conclude: ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις in this context relates to the new eschatological situation which has emerged from Christ's advent... .
In the New American Commentary on 2 Corinthians (pp. 286-287), David Garland discusses translational issues, in this case between the NIV and NRSV:
Translations usually choose between two options: "he is" (NIV), implying that the person is a new being, or "there is" (NRSV), implying that a new situation has come into being. The pronoun "anyone" seems to imply that Paul has individuals in mind. In the context he is talking about changing one's way of looking at things; and this change, which occurs at conversion, is a subjective experience...
On the other hand, Paul also conceives that Christ's death and resurrection marks a radical eschatological break between the old age and the new. Christ is the divider of history. Paul also never uses the noun "creation" to refer to an individual person (see Rom 1:2, 25; 8:19-22, 39), and the concept of a new creation appears prominently in Jewish apocalyptic texts that picture the new age as inaugurating something far more sweeping than individual's transformation--a new heaven and a new earth. The translation "there is a new creation" would mean that the new creation does not merely involve the personal transformation of individuals but encompasses the eschatological act of recreating humans and nature in Christ. It would also include the new community, which has done away with the artificial barriers of circumcision and uncirciumcision (Gal 6:15-16; see Eph 2:14-16) as part of this new creation.
...
Translating the words literally, "new creation," without inserting a pronoun would allow for both options since the eschatological reality of the new creation effected by Christ's advent makes possible that subjective change in individuals who become new creations in Christ. Paul's declaration is the corollary to his earlier affirmations that we are being transformed (3:16, 18; 4:16-17)--so much so that the believer becomes a new creation. The new heaven and new earth and the complete transformation of believers remain a future hope, but for Christians they are so certain to be fulfilled that their lives are controlled by this new reality that still awaits consummation. For individuals to become a part of this new creation, they must choose to be in Christ.
Going back to my original post, this explains the renderings of the HCSB, NRSV, and REB:
HCSB: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come."
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. "
Like the TNIV, none of these versions are attempting to a gender-inclusive renderings. As Garland describes above, leaving out the traditional pronoun allows for a wider interpretation for "new creation" than an exclusively individualized application. However, as I said in the previous post, "there is" still has a grammatically awkward feel to it. Perhaps this is why the TNIV translators went with "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come..."
Mystery solved. There's no real problem with the TNIV rendering of 2 Cor 5:17. The mistake I made in the previous post was to assume the changes made in the TNIV were of a translational nature and not an interpretational one. In looking at the changes in the TNIV, I assumed that this was gender-accurate rendering gone awry. And because of that assumption, I failed to research before I started writing--rarely a good idea. My mistake. I recant.
One more note: In the comments from the previous post, as other interpretational possibilities started to surface, I wrote, "So in spite of the title of the post, it's possible that there's not a problem at all. Instead, what we consider the 'traditional' translation may be merely a reflection of our post-Reformation tendency to over-personalize the Scriptures."
David Ker replied, "This is interesting stuff. There's a big difference in those two interpretations. Not sure of all the implications. I'd like to hear more about the 'post-Reformation personalization of Scriptures.' Are we moving (emerging?) toward a collective identity?"
Well, I'm not trying to sound emergent (nor NPP), but I believe most would agree that one of the few negative results of each believer having his or her own Bible following the Reformation and the invention of the printing press is that we tend to over-personalize the Scriptures. We look at a passage like 2 Cor 5:17, and rather than seeing a new creation that we can be part of, we see ourselves as the new creation, and of course this is reflected in our translations. We should remind ourselves that we are part of the Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of me.
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."