10 Things You Should Know About the Wisdom of God

March 17, 2026by: Matthew S. Harmon

This article is part of the 10 Things You Should Know series.

We Need God’s Wisdom

We live in a world where the amount of knowledge increases at an overwhelming rate. Despite this explosion of knowledge (or perhaps because of it), we find ourselves with an even greater need for wisdom. Human wisdom has its place and its uses, but it is inevitably affected by the effects of the fall and the curse on creation that resulted. What we most desperately need is the wisdom of God.

The expression “wisdom of God” can refer to several different realities. As an attribute of God, it reminds us that God is wise. But the wisdom of God can also refer to something that God reveals and something we, as human beings, must embrace. Understood this way, wisdom refers to the ability to discern good from evil and apply knowledge, skill, and experience in order to live in right relationship with God and others within the world that God made. Finally, the wisdom of God can also refer to a person—the Lord Jesus Christ. So, keep that in mind as we consider these ten things you should know about the wisdom of God.

1. The wisdom of God is rooted in the fear of the Lord.

The Bible makes it clear that if we want to have wisdom, the starting point is the fear of the Lord. Proverbs 9:10 states this truth with refreshing clarity: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” Several other passages make a similar point, each with its own nuance (see Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7). The kind of fear described here is not being afraid of something or someone, but a profound reverence and awe of who he is and a willing submission to his sovereign rule over us and the world.

2. The wisdom of God comes to us by revelation.

As the source of wisdom, God is the only one who can give wisdom. Proverbs 2:6 states it succinctly: “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” King Solomon understood this truth. When Yahweh appeared to him and invited Solomon to ask for anything, Solomon asked for wisdom to rule over Israel (1 Kings 3:1–14). Centuries later, Daniel, when confronted with the need to know the king’s dream and its interpretation (Dan. 2:1–16), prayed for God to reveal it to him (Dan. 2:17–19). When God answered his prayer, Daniel praised God as the one who has given him wisdom (Dan. 2:20–23). James 1:5 makes it clear that God offers wisdom to everyone: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

3. The wisdom of God is embedded within creation itself.

While it is true that God must reveal his wisdom, it is also true that he has embedded his wisdom within creation itself. It is evident in the way he made this world. Genesis 1–2 clearly implies this by stressing the orderliness and beauty of creation. Psalm 104:24 affirms this when it states, “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” Proverbs 3:19–20 strikes a similar note: “The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.” Simply by observing how the world around us works, we see God’s wisdom on display.

4. The wisdom of God and human wisdom sometimes align.

Because God has embedded his wisdom within creation itself, even those who do not know him can recognize his wisdom. Proverbs is full of observations about how the world generally works that even the most ardent atheist can affirm. Consider, for example, Proverbs 6:6–10:

Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest. How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest . . .

The point this passage makes is that laziness usually results in not having even the basic necessities of life, while hard work (as a general rule) enables one to have them. This truth can often be seen in our everyday experience, and it aligns with what God has revealed as wisdom in Scripture.

5. The wisdom of God and human wisdom often conflict.

But human wisdom and God’s wisdom do not always align. This contrast between God’s wisdom and human wisdom is at the heart of the gospel itself, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 1:21 when he writes “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” To those who are wise in the world’s eyes, the gospel seems foolish, since it is predicated on God’s grace shown in Christ. Because of this frequent tension between human/worldly wisdom and God’s wisdom, Proverbs 3:5–7 exhorts us to “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.”

Knowing the person who is the embodiment of wisdom is far better than knowing an abstract concept of wisdom.

 

6. The wisdom of God is an attribute that unites his other attributes.

All that God is and all that he does is shaped by wisdom. Thus, his love is a wise love, his justice is a wise justice, etc. After a lengthy explanation of God’s redemptive purposes for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9–11), Paul concludes by exclaiming “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33). Even in the midst of his unexplained suffering, Job affirms that “With God are wisdom and might; he has counsel and understanding.” (Job 12:13). Thus, in the ultimate sense, God is on the only being who is truly wise (Rom. 16:27), since he alone sees the beginning from the end and knows all things.

7. The wisdom of God is routinely reviled by human beings.

Although we can look at Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God from multiple angles, one that is often neglected is that their sin was a rejection of God’s wisdom. The serpent tempts Eve by saying that if she eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she “will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). The following verse reveals that part of her thought process is that eating from the tree would make her wise (Gen. 3:6). Instead of submitting to God’s revealed wisdom that she should not eat from the tree, she decided to determine right and wrong for herself. When Paul describes humanity’s rebellion against God, he also frames it in terms of rejecting God’s wisdom: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21–23). In our natural state, we revile God’s wisdom because we want the freedom to do as we wish.

8. The wisdom of God is reverberated in this life.

God does not permit his wisdom to be reviled without consequence. He vindicates it in many ways, such as allowing the natural results of sin come to fruition. But when it comes to God’s wisdom in the gospel itself, one of the surprising ways he reverberates it is in the church. Paul argues this in Ephesians 3:8–10 when he writes, “To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.”

9. The wisdom of God will be fully consummated in the new creation.

Although the pattern of God revealing his wisdom, human beings reviling, and God reverberating it runs throughout Scripture and history, there will come a day when that pattern ends. In the new creation, God’s wisdom will be fully on display as his redeemed people live out their identity as divine image-bearers. Revelation 22:3–5 gives us a glimpse of this reality: In the New Eden, “no longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.” What a glorious reality to reflect on that in the new creation there will not even be the possibility of reviling God’s wisdom!

10. The wisdom of God is embodied by Jesus Christ.

The wisdom of God is more than an attribute of God or something we as human beings need. Part of what separates Christianity from all other worldviews and belief systems is that the wisdom of God took on flesh and dwelt among us. Although Proverbs 8:22–36 foreshadowed this reality, Colossians 2:3 makes this truth crystal clear when it says that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Knowing the person who is the embodiment of wisdom is far better than knowing an abstract concept of wisdom. Through the gospel, Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God, takes up residence in our lives not merely to know wisdom but to live it out in the power of the Spirit.

 

The Skeptic and the Old Testament

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Misc.

It is a common tactic among skeptics today to point to certain verses in the Bible, and then demand that said verses contradict each other. For many years, Dan Barker, a denominational preacher-turned-atheist, has insisted that the Bible contains hundreds of such contradictions. As proof of this assertion, he gives a list of these alleged contradictions in chapter 23 of his most famous work, Losing Faith in Faith. A brief look at that list gives the reader a keen insight into the many weaknesses of these supposed contradictions. One of those glaring weaknesses is the failure to understand that the Old Testament laws no longer are binding upon men today unless they are reiterated in the new law of Christ (i.e., the New Testament).

 

For example, on page 166, Barker poses the question, “Shall we keep the Sabbath?” He then cites Exodus 20:8 (among other Old Testament passages), which reads: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” In supposed contradiction to this verse, he quotes Colossians 2:16: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” According to Barker’s logic, the Bible says in one place that people should keep the Sabbath, but it says in another place that the Sabbath does not necessarily have to be kept, therefore the Bible contradicts itself.

It is easy to see, however, that Barker refuses to recognize one of the central tenants of the New Testament: The Old Law (Old Testament) was specifically for the Jewish nation, it was done away with at the death of Christ, and the New Law (The New Testament) replaced it. The New Testament books of Hebrews and Galatians were written specifically to confirm that very fact. Hebrews 8:13 explains that the Old Testament laws had become obsolete at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews. If Dan Barker would have read just a few verses before Colossians 2:16, he would have encountered the fact that the Old Law had been “nailed” to the cross (2:14). Ephesians 2:14-17 explains that in His death, Jesus Christ abolished the Old Law and brought in a New Law. Under that New Law, people no longer are required to keep the Sabbath, offer bulls and goats for sin sacrifices, or make yearly trips to the temple.

Any person who accuses the Bible of a contradiction in this instance (and others similar to it) is guilty of misunderstanding two crucial issues: (1) the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament in the Bible; and (2) the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction states that two opposing statements cannot be both true and not true in the same respect at the same time. Barker’s supposed contradiction about the Sabbath does not take into account that the statements were written nearly 1,500 years apart, that the Old Law had been abolished, and that the New Law contains no commandment to keep the Sabbath.

In order for a person to make such an obviously mistaken allegation, one of the following options must be the case: (1) he has done very little Bible study; (2) he has misunderstood large sections of the New Testament; or (3) he has intentionally misled his readers, all the while knowing that the law of contradiction was not violated. Which of these three situations applies to the current discussion, I do not know. But it is abundantly evident that no legitimate Bible contradiction exists.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Homo Naledi—Kind of Shady?

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionAlleged Human EvolutionFossil RecordIn the NewsPaleontolog

On September 10th the media began highlighting the latest fossil find which is argued, once again, to be representative of an ancient ancestor of humans—Homo naledi. We are wary about how we respond to brand new discoveries, since always the “jury is still out” when these stories are first splashed in the media and portrayed as conclusive proof of various claims. We have documented their rashness time and again (e.g., Miller, 2015a; Miller, 2015b; Miller, 2015c), and this story is no exception. Fox News highlighted South African deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa’s statement that “history books will have to be rewritten” based on this discovery (Tilsley, 2015), a statement very reminiscent of how the media viewed the Homo floresiensis fossils when they were discovered in 2004. In 2014 a new study suggested that the fossils were merely modern humans with Down Syndrome (Miller, 2015b). In keeping with previous trends among naturalists and the media, it seems likely that this newest discovery will again, in the long run, prove not to be what the media is currently claiming it to be, once further study has been done on the fossils—as was the case with Homo floresiensis,Australopithecus sediba (Miller, 2015c), and the Big Bang inflation debacle last year (Miller, 2015a). With these facts in mind, here are some of the details we can gather at this initial stage.

Lee Berger is the evolutionary paleoanthropologist of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa who has been in the media a lot the past few years due to the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba fossils (Miller, 2012a; Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2015c). Once again, his team has been at the heart of the newest discovery. Though the find is only now being broadcast, the discovery took place in 2013 and was kept secret for two years. They discovered ancient bones and teeth in a cave system in Africa that now number over 1,500 in specimens—an unheard of cache of “human-like” fossils from a single site (Callaway, 2015). The bones are thought to be representative of some 15 individuals.

Credit: Lee Roger Berger research team  (http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560) [CC BY 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The first thing you will likely notice in many of the articles splashing the find is the paleoartist depiction of what Homo naledi is thought to have looked like (e.g., Shreeve, 2015; Barras, 2015; Watson, 2015). This portrait should immediately cause skepticism, since mere bones do not tell you what a person’s facial expressions, eye color, skin color, facial wrinkles, hair color, or lips would have looked like, even if a complete skull had been found. Yet all of these features are brazenly depicted in the naledi reconstruction (and even emphasized in the case of National Geographic’s home Web page the day after running the story, which featured a close-up of nadeli’s eye region, complete with freckles around the eyes and red blood vessels in the whites of its eyes).  As When such liberties are taken and brazenly broadcast to the media’s audience as solid science, the effect is powerful reported earlier this year regarding the sediba fossils (Miller, 2015c), paleoartists have been extremely influential in shaping the minds of the masses in whether they view evolution as true or false, in spite of the fact that their artistic depictions are typically created based on meager evidence—what New Scientist calls “part of a face here” or “a jawbone fragment there” (Barras). USA Today described the nadeli discovery as “1,550-plus bits of fossil” (Watson, emp. added). New Scientist highlighted Berger’s contention that the naledi discovery “has implications for how we interpret the other early human fossil finds…. These fossils generally amount to just a few fragments rather than complete skeletons” (Barras, emp. added). As he pointed out after discovering the sediba fossils, Berger now adds, “Both sediba and naledi say you can’t take a mandible [lower jaw], a maxilla [upper jaw] or a collection of teeth and try to predict what the rest of the body looks like” (as quoted in Barras). Based on what happened in the case of the sediba fossils, having more than said evidence still does not guarantee correct depictions (Miller, 2015c). Apparently the paleoartists are still not getting the message from leading paleoanthropologists.

There are other curiosities already being highlighted at this early stage of the discovery: the age of the fossils is unclear—anywhere between 200,000 and 2,800,000 years (Tilsley), based on evolutionary dating schemes, and where the fossils fall in that range is significant from an evolutionary perspective. [NOTE: Creationists would argue that those dates correlate to the post-Flood period a few thousand years ago.] USA Today quoted Berger’s thoughts regarding the fossils:

[T]he bodies may have been deliberately placed in the cave, suggesting that long-ago, human relatives were engaged in ritual disposals of their dead. “It’s enormously surprising to see a very primitive member of the genus, something with this small a brain,” engaged in activity that was thought to be unique to modern humans (as quoted in Watson).

Fox News quoted Berger saying, “‘This is a new species of human that deliberately disposed of bodies in this chamber.’…Up until now, Berger adds, it was thought that Homo sapiens were the first beings to choose to dispose of their dead. ‘Now, with Homo naledi, we have evidence of the world’s first burial site,’ he said” (Tilsley).

This claim is, as Berger notes, completely inconsistent with the paleoanthropology community’s previous claims about Homo sapiens. If Berger is right that the naledi buried their dead, and if the fossils are dated by evolutionists to be over a million years old (using their time scales), then paleoanthropologists have been wrong in their bold claims about Homo sapiens. Previously, the oldest evidence of human burial was dated by evolutionists as 430,000 years ago (Callaway). Since burial of dead bodies is considered a mark of intelligence that distinguishes humans from the animal kingdom, Berger’s find could provide tangible evidence that what we would call “humans” (roughly the genus “Homo”) have always been intelligent, rather than that trait evolving within humans. [NOTE: Creationists argue that there would have been a few thousand “proto-species” (called “kinds” in the Bible—cf. Genesis 7:14), on Noah’s Ark with immense genetic capability for creating the diversity we see on the planet today within those kinds, including the diversity we see within Homo sapiens. Humans, therefore, would not have necessarily looked exactly as we do today, but would have still been humans (just as caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid physiologies today do not look exactly the same). Legitimate examples of ancient humans are likely representative of the humans flourishing in the centuries immediately following the Flood a few thousand years ago. Dating schemes that expand that time scale to hundreds of thousands or millions of years suffer from flawed assumptions—cf. Houts, 2015; Miller, 2013.]

Another inconsistency in the naledi discovery: the jumble of fossils that were found in the shaft, if they all belong to the same species, seem to represent a species with a strange hodgepodge of characteristics that do not seem plausible. The skull seems to have harbored a smaller, ape-like brain, while the lower limbs, feet, and hands that were discovered, according to paleoanthropologists, seem to be more like that of modern humans. New Scientist reported,

The species the bones belonged to had a unique mix of characteristics. Look at its pelvis or shoulders, says Berger, and you would think it was an apelike Australopithecus which appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago and is thought to be an ancestor of Homo. But look at its foot and you could think it belonged to our species…. Its skull, though, makes clear that the brain was less than half the size of ours, and more like that of some species of Homo that lived about 2 million years ago. “It doesn’t look a lot like us,” says Berger (Barras).

Quoting John Hawks, paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Nature reported, “It is a very strange combination of features, some that we’ve never seen before and some that we would have never expected to find together” (Callaway, emp. added). Of course, the reason for that expectation is justified: the combination of such body components does not make sense. It is very possible that in actuality the bones might not actually belong together at all—a contention that was argued by paleoanthropologists against Berger’s sediba fossils last year (Miller, 2015c). As with sediba, they may be merely a jumble of bones from different species. After all, Hawks, who helped coordinate the dig for naledi, admitted that “the team took flak for its unorthodox approach. ‘There’s a lot of the field that really believed we’re just a couple of cowboys who don’t know how things should be done’” (as quoted in Callaway). Of course, when the strange inconsistencies of this find are added to the previously botched assertions of Berger in the sediba find, it provides evidence that the critics may have a point.

Berger argues that “the bodies appear to have been dropped from above down a chute formed by rocks which forms the entrance to the chamber” (Tilsley). Could it, instead, be the case that the bodies of several different people and animals all fell down the chute and were trapped there, rather than having been intentionally dropped down the chute? Science highlighted that possibility (Gibbons, 2015, p. 1150). Such would explain why there’s a hodgepodge of bones from apparently different species. Remains from rodents and an owl were also found (p. 1150). Since the hundreds of bones were found disarticulated (i.e., separated from one another rather than in skeletal frame position), there is no conclusive way to know which bones go with which species—and by implication, no way to know if there are or are not multiple species represented.

No wonder, even at this early stage, paleoanthropologists who are critical of Berger’s claims are not hard to find. USA Today reported reactions by two of them:

Other scientists find the new trove of fossils tantalizing but don’t necessarily agree with Berger and his team on what, exactly, has been found. The fossils are “fabulous and a bit confusing,” says New York University’s Susan Anton via email. “There are some things in this that just don’t look like early Homo,” or at least the fossils of early Homo from east Africa. “The material is spectacular,” says the University of Pittsburgh’s [sic] Jeffrey Schwartz….” But “the interpretation of it … is doubtful.” He points out varying skull shapes, among other features, among the Naledi specimens and argues the Homo family is so poorly defined that it’s not clear Naledi fits into it (Watson, emp. added).

Apparently the find isn’t as clear as it is being portrayed. Nature quoted Schwartz as well: “However, Jeffrey Schwartz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, thinks that the material is too varied to represent a single species. ‘I could show those images to my students and they would say that they’re not the same,’ he says. One of the skulls looks more like it comes from an australopithecine, he says, as do certain features of the femurs” (Callaway). Apparently, Schwartz agrees with my first take on the evidence: there’s more than one species represented by the fossils. Fox News admitted that “[n]ot everybody agreed that the discovery revealed a new species. Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley [who is most known for his work on the famous “Lucy” fossils—JM], told The Associated Press the claim is questionable. ‘From what is presented here, (the fossils) belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s,’ he said” (Tilsley, parenthetical statement in orig.). New Scientist included its disclaimers as well:

Inevitably, though, there are dissenting views. “To me, having studied virtually the entire human fossil record, the specimens lumped together as Homo naledi represent two cranial morphs,” says Jeffrey Schwartz at the University of Pittsburgh in Philadelphia. Ian Tattersall at the American Museum of Natural History in New York shares that view. Last month, he and Schwartz wrote an article calling for researchers to think carefully about classifying new fossils as belonging to Homo. As for the Dinaledi finds, Schwartz and Tattersall point out that although the foreheads of some of the new skulls are gently sloped, one skull has a taller forehead with a distinct brow ridge—suggesting two species are present. “Putting these fossils in the genus Homo adds to the lack of clarity in trying to sort out human evolution,” says Schwartz (Barras).

Bottom line: the evolutionary community must continue its search for conclusive evidence of its claims that we evolved from an ape-like creature. On a positive note, it is refreshing that Lee Berger, unlike the bulk of the paleoanthropological community, is insistent about not hoarding his fossil finds where few can examine them to see the evidence for themselves. Noting the change in practice that Berger is creating in the community by being so open, paleoanthropologist of the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK, Tracy Kivell, said, “There’s lots of fossils out there no one has ever seen, except for a few select people. Palaeoanthropology is really rotten that way” (Callaway). Is it possible that if the paleoanthropological community was more forthcoming with their alleged evidences for evolution, more scientists would be able to assess the evidence and more quickly discover flaws in claims being made? In so doing, would they not highlight for the world, before the world forgets the previous flawed claims, how unsupported by solid evidence the theory of evolution truly is?

REFERENCES

Barras, Colin (2015), “New Species of Extinct Human Found in Cave May Rewrite History,” NewScientist.com, September 10, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-700-new-species-extinct-human-found-in-cave-may-rewrite-history/.

Callaway, Ewen (2015), “Crowdsourcing Digs Up an Early Human Species,” Nature.com, September 10, http://www.nature.com/news/crowdsourcing-digs-up-an-early-human-species-1.18305.

Gibbons, Ann (2015), “New Human Species Discovered,” Science, 349[6253]:1149-1150, September 11.

Houts, Michael G. (2015), “Assumptions and the Age of the Earth,” Reason & Revelation, 35[3]:26-34, March, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1185.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer?” Reason & Revelation, 32[3]:33-35, March, https://apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1024&article=1741#.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “Sediba Hype Continues,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:92-93, September, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093&article=2039.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]:62-70, June, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122.

Miller, Jeff (2015a), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65, June, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1195&article=2514.

Miller, Jeff (2015b), “Hobbit Man: Another Blunder…And an Insult,” Reason & Revelation, 35[4]:46-47, April, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1188&article=2503.

Miller, Jeff (2015c), “Sediba: Yet Another Paleo-Blunder,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:66, June, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1195&article=2516.

Shreeve, Jamie (2015), “This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?” NationalGeographic.com, September 10, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/.

Tilsley, Paul (2015), “Mass Grave of New Human Relative Discovered in South Africa, Claim Scientists,” FoxNews.com, September 10, http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/09/10/mass-grave-new-human-relative-discovered-in-south-africa-claim-scientists/?intcmp=hpbt1.

Watson, Traci (2015), “Ancient Fossils in African Cave are Tantalizing Glimpse of Early Man,” USAToday.com, September 10, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/10/fossils-humans-cave-ancient-bones/71966570/?hootPostID=69a85859aa6fa7ba18f77917410b6df1.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The English Standard Version

By Wayne Jackson

 
 
 
 

For centuries men have been translating the original Scriptures (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) into their native vernacular. Each time a translation is produced there is the hope that it will be the perfect one. It never is; because translations, unlike the original autographs, are the productions of fallible men. And “to err is human.” Some degree of subjective interpretation is woven into the fabric of any Bible version. Admittedly, though, some translations are better than others.

In the autumn of 2001, a fresh English translation made its appearance. Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers (Wheaton, IL) introduced the English Standard Version (ESV). The Preface of this rendition begins by echoing a statement expressed by the translators of the original King James Version. “God’s sacred Word . . .is that inestimable treasure that excelleth all the riches of the earth.” The translators pledge that this sentiment “is the motivating force” that undergirds the publication of the ESV.

Unlike many modern paraphrases, which pursue the Dynamic Equivalence (DE) approach, the ESV “seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and personal style of each Bible writer.” Its goal, therefore, was to produce, a “word-for-word” edition.

As noted earlier, the DE ideology contends that the best version is that which is concerned more with the representation of ideas which express the primitive meaning, and not so much with the replication of the original words (usually designated as Form Equivalence – FE). It is not difficult to see that the DE concept lends itself more readily to subjectivity, than does the more literal approach. Surely those who believe that the very words of the original documents were inspired of God, would prefer a literal translation — to the extent that such is possible and practical.

The original-language texts employed in the project were the Masoretic text for the Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1983 – 2nd Ed.), and for the New Testament, The Greek New Testament (1993 – 4th ed. UBS) and Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle/Aland – 27th ed.). The English rendition of this new version is somewhat analogous to the RSV of 1971, minus the liberal elements of that translation.

The translation team involved more than 100 scholars, the names and credentials of whom are available upon request from Crossway Bibles. The ESV is recommended by such notable scholars as Robert Mounce, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, Leon Morris, Harold Hoehner, and Jack Cottrell.

The Classic Reference edition of this Bible contains 76,000 center-column references, a concordance with 14,500 entries, introductions to each Bible book, full color maps, and even a CD-Rom with two English translations (KJV, ESV), along with several additional resources.

I have not gone through the entire volume. I’ve only checked random passages; nonetheless, I am impressed with this new version. It may turn out to be one the best modern alternative to the King James translation, although I still prefer the meticulous precision of the American Standard Version (1901).

Strengths of the ESV

There are several strengths that underscore the value of the new ESV. First, as reflected in the textual base, it is translated from the latest collection of Hebrew and Greek documents, giving it the strongest textual foundation of anything yet produced in a translation.

Second, unlike some of the more recent versions, whose translators were characterized by liberal tendencies, the ESV appears to have been produced by men who attempted to “carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our language.”

For example, the RSV created a storm of controversy with its “young woman” rendition of Isaiah 7:14, whereas the ESV has it “virgin” — and so Isaiah and Matthew (1:22-23) are in harmony again!

Another of the strengths of the ESV is the clarity and accuracy which many passages lacked in some of the earlier versions. For example “expanse” replaces the ill-rendered “firmament” in Genesis 1. The term “cattle” (a specific term) appears as “livestock” (more generic) in the ESV of Genesis 1.

Genesis 22:1 notes that “God tested Abraham”; he did not “tempt” him (cf. James 1:13), as the old KJV suggested. The Shakespearean “thee” and “thou” are replaced with contemporary pronouns: “And God said to Abram, Go from your country and your father’s house . . .” (Genesis 12:1). The increasingly obsolete “brethren” is now found as “brothers.” Or when more distant relatives are considered, “brethren” becomes “kinsmen” (Genesis 13:8).

Compare the following passages which depict the power of God in the storms of nature. “The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour” (Job 36:33 – KJV). The ESV has it: “Its crashing declares his presence; the cattle also declare that he rises.” Or these: " . . .you are straightened in your own bowels" (2 Corinthians 6:12 – KJV); " . . .you are restricted in your own affections" (ESV).

Concerning the Sunday collection, the ESV correctly has: “On the first day of every week . . . ,” whereas both the KJV and ASV omit the term “every.”

Note how beautifully the following passages dealing with God’s creation are rendered:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).

The ESV corrects the NIV relative to 1 Corinthians 7:15. The NIV suggests that if an unbeliever leaves his Christian mate, the Christian “is not bound” to the relationship any longer (which is at variance with Matthew 19:9). The ESV, however, correctly notes that the Christian is “not enslaved,” i.e., is not obligated to pursue the abandoning mate, maintaining perpetual proximity.

Passages dealing with baptism are given a fair treatment in this version (although, as with most others, the verb baptizo is anglicized, rather than being strictly translated as “immerse,” and that for commercial purposes). This is a problem that goes all the way back to the King James Version, and has been almost uniformly followed since then. One can only imagine how few editions would be sold among denominationalists if “immersion” was the common rendition of baptizo.

The ESV of 1 Peter 3:21 shows that immersion is “an appeal to God for a good [i.e., clean] conscience,” which obviously one cannot have apart from that obedience.

Corrections and Improvements

As noted earlier, there is no flawless translation. There is no version upon which all will agree in every particular. One may suggest improvements in a translation, without adopting the radical viewpoint that the version must be condemned altogether because of a weakness, or mistranslation, in some instances. The ESV appears, in this writer’s judgment, to be a good translation — in spite of a few problems.

Some earlier versions (e.g., KJV; NKJV; ASV; NASB) employed italics in the type-setting process indicating when words were being added to the text for clarification purposes. Unfortunately, the ESV does not continue that helpful procedure.

Some translations in recent years have had the tendency to be more generic than they needed to be. For example, the NASB rendered the Greek term porneia (“fornication”) by “immorality” in Matthew 19:9. That is too generic. Stealing is a form of “immorality,” but it is not the basis for scriptural divorce.

Similarly, the ESV translates porneia as “sexual immorality.” Again, though, that is too general. Lust is a form of “sexual immorality,” but evil thoughts are not a justification for terminating a marriage. The translators probably felt that the term “fornication” is not understood well enough today; that assumption likely is unwarranted.

The ESV’s rendition of monogenes (“only begotten” – KJV, ASV) as “only” will probably reignite the controversy that raged mightily a few years ago. But the basic disagreement has to do with the etymology of the original term. Does genos signify “kind,” hence, monogenes indicates “one of a kind,” i.e., unique? Or, does genos mean “begotten”?

Actually, the term “begotten” is from gennan, a kindred term, but with a different meaning. Most modern scholars who insist that “only begotten” is the preferred term, do so on theological grounds, i.e., the idea that Jesus derived his “being” from the Father (see Hoch, p. 606). Actually, one can argue that monogenes means “only” — without being liberal in his view of the Savior. Monogenes is rendered “only” on two occasions in the KJV (Luke 7:12; 8:42).

The ESV has followed the NASB in rendering the present participle, hyparchon (“being” KJV; “existing” ASV), in Philippians 2:6, as a past tense form — “was in the form of God” — which could leave the impression that Jesus was not deity while in the flesh, though the translators do not mean to imply this. The Lord always existed, and continued to exist, as deity, even though incarnate (Fee, 1995, p. 203; Vine, 1991, pp. 279-80). R.C.H. Lenski noted that Jesus never existed apart from the nature of deity (p. 774). There is no reason not to give the participle its full, present tense flavor, as we have noted earlier.

In a segment where the headship of “man” (in general) over “woman” is in view (1 Corinthians 11:3ff), rather than the husband-wife relationship, the ESV renders the original words aner as “husband,” and gune as “wife,” in a manner that is inconsistent with the immediate context, and at variance with other contexts dealing with the same gender theme (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:8ff).

The ESV could be improved by translating “the perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10) as “the complete,” which would then balance with its rendition, “the partial,” in 10b. The contrast is between partial revelation and complete revelation. Too many people erroneously attach a moral connotation to “perfect” in this text, thus contending that spiritual gifts were to continue until the coming of Christ (who is presumed to be the “perfect” one, implied in the passage).

It is unfortunate that most translations continue to lend credence to the notion of “hereditary depravity” by rendering the Greek term psusei as “by nature” in Ephesians 2:3. The word can denote that which reflects “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer, p. 660). Man becomes a “child of wrath” by his practice, not by a contaminated nature effected by inheritance.

It is puzzling that the ESV transliterated the Greek word hades in Acts 2:27, and yet rendered the same term as “hell” in Matthew 16:18. The common conception of “hell” is that it represents the final abode of the wicked. One is grateful, however, for the ESV footnotes on Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, which reflect the perfect tense form of the verbs, “shall have been bound,” etc., thus showing that the apostles yielded to Heaven’s will, rather than the reverse being true (as alleged by Catholicism).

Conclusion

Though the ESV is not without some weakness, generally speaking, it appears to be an accurate, literal translation, rendered in beautiful English. It is a version, we believe, that will serve the English-speaking world with distinction. It is our hope that this new version will not become a point of contention within the body of Christ.

Related Articles

• Does the English Standard Version Support Watchtower Doctrine?
• The English Standard Version and Micah 5:2
• What About the Name Jehovah?
• Does Psalm 22 Prophesy the Crucifixion of Christ?
• From God’s Mind to Man—The Bible
• Were the King James Version Translators Biased Toward the “Faith-Only” Doctrine?
• In What Sense Is Man the Head of Woman?
• Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ
• Ephesians 2:3 – By Nature Children of Wrath
• What Are the Unicorns and Satyrs Mentioned in the Bible?

Works Cited

• Fee, Gordon. 1995. Paul’s Letters to the Philippians. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.
• Hoch, C.B., Jr. 1986. “Only-Begotten.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Revised. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. III.
• Lenski, R.C.H. 1961. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
• Thayer, J.H. 1958. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark.
• Vine, W.E. 1991. Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament. Iowa Falls, IA: World.

Scripture References

Isaiah 7:14; Genesis 1; Genesis 22:1; James 1:13; Genesis 12:1; Genesis 13:8; Job 36:33; 2 Corinthians 6:12; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:3; 1 Corinthians 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Peter 3:21; Luke 7:12, 8:42; Philippians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:8; 1 Corinthians 13:10; Ephesians 2:3; Acts 2:27; Matthew 16:18; Matthew 16:19

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "The English Standard Version." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: June 30, 2019.