Author: Christopher R Smith

The Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society (now Biblica) for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version (NIV) that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses. His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings. He has a B.A. from Harvard in English and American Literature and Language, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christian Life and Thought, with a minor concentration in Bible, from Boston College, in the joint program with Andover Newton Theological School.

Why doesn’t Job ever mention Satan?

Q. We recently studied the book of Job. Why does Job not mention Satan, when he’s the one behind his troubles?

Job doesn’t mention Satan because Job doesn’t know that Satan is behind his troubles. He can’t know, otherwise the purpose for his troubles would be defeated.

As I discuss the opening narrative in my study guide to the book of Job, I say:

“The book of Job has much to say about the problem of evil, that is, why there is so much suffering in the world if it’s governed by a good God. As we consider the book in detail in the sessions ahead, we’ll get many insights into this question. But here the Adversary begins by raising a different problem, the problem of good. If apparent goodness is always rewarded and bad conduct is always punished, how can we ever really be sure that a person is genuinely good and not just trying to win rewards and avoid punishment? It turns out that the only kind of universe in which genuine good can be known to exist is one in which good people sometimes suffer undeservedly but still demonstrate continuing loyalty to God.”

If God told Job, “You are suffering these things in order to prove that people can still trust me and live in the right way even when they suffer without knowing why,” then Job would know why he was suffering. In order for the test to address the “problem of good” and show that God has created a universe in which genuine good actually does exist, Job can’t know why he is suffering.

In light of this, in this session of the study guide I also ask this question for reflection and discussion:

“One of the most disturbing thoughts for readers of the book of Job is the idea that the devil could somehow trick God into allowing him to harm a loyal person of faith. But the interaction here is much more complex than that simple interpretation implies. The Adversary can only believe that Job is motivated by greed; the Lord knows that Job’s heart is actually pure and devoted. And so the Lord permits, or perhaps even arranges, a test in which the devil’s worst efforts actually disclose the truth about Job’s good heart, and about the possibility of goodness generally. If, through suffering without knowing why, you could help demonstrate for an audience on earth and in heaven that cynical, disparaging, diabolical contradictions of God’s ways are false and unfounded, would you be willing to do this?”

(You can download a copy of my Job study guide for free at this link.)

Does a person need to be baptized to become a church leader?

Q. There is a young couple in our church who, though they are relatively new believers, both have great leadership abilities. We are consistently looking to disciple new leaders. However, while he has been baptized, she has not. She does not plan to be baptized, and he supports her in this. The main reason seems to be that she is fearful of most public speaking, and when our church baptizes people, it asks them to give a public testimony. We have explained that a baptism can be done more privately, for example, in the summer when lakes, beaches, and pools are available for gatherings of smaller groups, instead of in a huge church service. But after nearly a year, she still chooses not to be baptized. We are hard pressed to find any scripture that says that to be a leader, one must first be baptized. We have gone through both the 1 Timothy qualifications for leadership and the scriptures that speak to baptism itself, and none state directly that baptism is a qualification for church leadership. So can we begin to disciple this couple with a view toward bringing them both into leadership roles, even if she chooses not to be baptized?

It is true that the Scriptures do not state directly that anyone in a leadership role in the church needs to have been baptized. However, the Scriptures do teach as a general principle that leaders must set a good example and lead by that example. It would not be appropriate for a leader to tell a young Christian, for example, “You don’t need to be baptized. I haven’t been baptized myself.” Jesus chose baptism as the means by which he wanted people to declare publicly that they were his followers. So when any of us becomes a follower of Jesus, it is a matter of obedience to our Lord to make a public declaration of our allegiance to him in the way that he has specified. Personally I believe that every leader in the church should set an example of obeying Jesus in this way. (And since Jesus told his apostles to go and make disciples and baptize them, and since those instructions apply in a continuing way to church leaders today, every leader in the church should also be eager to see others baptized.)

And personally it’s hard for me to imagine someone being baptized only as a matter of obedience. I have baptized many people as a pastor, and in every case, the person was eager to be baptized. For them, it was a joyous moment in which they were able to express their devotion to their Lord publicly, in front of family and friends. So in the case of the woman you are describing, I would want to ask her what specific concerns she has that are keeping her from being baptized. I think one very important question would be, “If you could be baptized without having to do any public speaking, would you be baptized?” If the answer is still no, then there are further concerns to address as a matter of discipleship. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who brings us to the realization that we should honor Christ in baptism—and that, in fact, we are eager to do so. Perhaps further growth as a believer, with the help of appropriate counsel and encouragement, will help this woman make that realization, if there are in fact other concerns present.

But if the answer is yes, then, as you have already noted, there are many ways in which a person can be baptized without having to speak at length in front of a large group. You have mentioned one of them, a small-group setting. There are many others. In the churches where I was a pastor, we typically did ask baptismal candidates to give a public testimony. But sometimes, when we had many candidates and when we had time constraints, we would have them write out their testimonies, and we would print those in our bulletin for people to read. That might be a possibility in this case. I have also used an interview format in front of a congregation with people who didn’t feel comfortable speaking on their own. I had learned their story, and so I would prompt them with questions to allow them to tell the story one step at a time. They could respond directly to me, so they didn’t feel as if they were speaking to a large group. These are just some of the many alternatives that could be pursued. I’m sure that your church would not insist on a public speech if that stood in the way of someone being baptized.

However, it is a reasonable expectation that a candidate for baptism will say at least something publicly. All Christian traditions have baptismal vows that candidates take. This is part of what makes baptism a sacrament, a public confession of faith in Jesus and a commitment to follow him. The specific vows vary in length and detail from tradition to tradition. When I have baptized people, I have only asked them two questions:
Officiant: Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Candidate: I do.
Officiant: Will you live from now on in obedience to him?
Candidate: God helping me, I will.
I would hope that even a person who was not generally comfortable speaking in public would be able to give such answers in front of a group of believers, large or small, who had come to witness their baptism. (Once again, as a rule, I have never found candidates to be reluctant to answer these questions. Some have spoken out their answers so loudly and with such commitment that people could probably have heard them on the next block!)

I’m glad to hear that this couple have become believers and that they have leadership gifts that will be of service to God’s people. I’m also glad to hear of your sympathetic concern for them and of your commitment to ensuring that you are following the teaching of the Scriptures. May God give you wisdom, grace, and patience to be a good guide, teacher, encourager, and discipler.

Can God transform the heart and mind of a leader?

Q. Does God have the capacity and/or willingness to work in the heart and mind of a leader and transform him from within so that he follows Jesus’ teachings such as “love God, not money” and “love your neighbor” (including strangers; don’t treat others as enemies)? Sometimes we see leaders that we feel have the potential to be a much better leaders if they were transformed in this way. Is this something we can hope for?

The Bible certainly encourages us to pray for our leaders, and as it does, it encourages us to believe that God wants those leaders, as he wants all people, to be transformed as you describe. Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy, for example:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

I think the idea here is that if we do pray for our leaders, God can work through those prayers to influence their character and conduct so that we, the people they rule, will be able to live “peaceful and quiet lives.”

One example in the Bible of a leader who was transformed is Nebuchadnezzar, the emperor of Babylon. He had conquered all of the kingdoms around him, and so he thought that he was the supreme ruler of the world. God gave him an inspired dream to warn him about this proud attitude and its consequences. The prophet Daniel interpreted the dream for him. Daniel explained that he needed to acknowledge that “the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.”

That acknowledgment had to take a specific form. Because Nebuchadnezzar was arrogant in his position of power, he was doing things that were wrong, and he was oppressing the people he ruled. Daniel warned him, “Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed.” In other words, Nebuchadnezzar had to do more than just give lip service to the idea that God, not he, was the supreme ruler. He also had to rule in a way that showed he recognized that he was accountable to God to do right and not oppress people.

It seems that Nebuchadnezzar took the warning to heart for about a year. But then he became proud again (and apparently started doing wrong and oppressing others again), so God dealt with him severely. God made him become insane for seven years. But at the end of that time, Nebuchadnezzar “raised his eyes toward heaven” (an expression that I think describes repentance), and God restored his sanity and his position as emperor. Nebuchadnezzar recounted this experience in a letter to his empire that is preserved in the Bible. He said in conclusion, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride, he is able to humble.”

I think we can recognize from Nebuchadnezzar’s experience that God’s first inclination toward any ruler who is proud, who is doing wrong, and who is oppressing others is to get them to change their ways. God sent warnings through a dream and through a prophet. Even after Nebuchadnezzar started ignoring the warnings and God had to deal with him more severely, God’s goals were still transformation and restoration. And those goals were ultimately accomplished.

This account should give us hope that God’s goals are still the same today for any ruler who is being proud, doing wrong, and oppressing others. We can expect that God will bring experiences into that leader’s life that serve as warnings, and that God will send people who will give explicit warnings. We can also expect that God will take whatever further measures are necessary to bring about the kind of transformation in leaders’ lives today that Nebuchadnezzar experienced in his own day. So I believe that we can and should pray for the transformation of leaders, knowing from the Scriptures that this is something God wants.

The apostle Peter wrote in his first epistle, “Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” In Peter’s time, the emperor was the ruler who had authority over him. Believers in Jesus today should similarly “show proper respect to everyone” and “honor” their own rulers. I hear in your question an attitude of respect and honor for the position of ruler and a desire for rulers to conduct their personal lives in a way that is worthy of that respect and honor. I believe this is something we certainly can and should pray for, knowing that as we do, our prayers are in accord with God’s wishes and purposes.

How old were Jesus’ disciples?

Q. How old do you think Jesus’ disciples were?

I would direct you to the discussion in this post, which notes that movies tend to portray the disciples as middle-aged or older, certainly older than the 30-year-old Jesus, but which then argues (convincingly, I feel) that the disciples were mostly younger than Jesus, in their 20s or even teens. My thanks to Rick Thiessen of Allen Creek Community Church for such an excellent treatment of the subject.

Was Paul only saved when he was baptized and “washed away his sins”?

Q. Many speak as if Paul’s salvation took place when he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus. In fact, the term “Damascus Road experience” is often applied to those with a dramatic conversion testimony. In Acts 9, we learn that Paul was knocked to the ground, terrified by the heavenly light. The Lord told him to go into the city and wait. In the meantime, the Lord spoke to Ananias and told him to go and visit Paul. Later, in Acts 22:16, we learn that Ananias said to Paul, “And now, why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” So perhaps it was only after acknowledging his sins and calling on the Lord for forgiveness that Paul became a saved sinner? What do you think? (By the way, water baptism can’t save or “wash away sins” or be part of a “work” required to be saved. However, believers should agree to water baptism. But that’s another topic.)

Your question highlights how, on the one hand, we may speak of a “moment of conversion,” but how, on the other hand, we may also describe conversion as a process. It’s true that when people are converted suddenly and dramatically, we often call that a “Damascus Road experience,” as if Paul’s own conversion had been sudden and dramatic. But as you point out, there was more to it than the encounter with Jesus on the road. Luke relates in Acts 9:9 that Paul fasted for three days after he was led into the city, and Jesus tells Ananias in Acts 9:11 that Paul has been praying. Christians of some traditions would refer to this as the “use of means” toward salvation. So things were still in process between the time Paul encountered Jesus on the road and the time when Ananias came to visit him.

One way to think about the sacraments is that they are the church community bearing witness to the work of God in individual lives. Based on what Jesus told him about Paul, Ananias was prepared to call Paul his “brother” in the faith and to offer him baptism (indeed, to challenge him to be baptized). So we could say that Paul’s baptism was the moment at which, from the perspective of the Christian community, for all it knew, Paul was a saved sinner. (Only God ultimately knows people’s hearts.) However, we see both a moment and a process even here. When Paul went to Jerusalem, the believers there did not want him to join them. They were afraid of him, thinking that he was not a genuine disciple but only trying to infiltrate their group so that he could arrest more of them. It was only when Barnabas vouched for Paul that the Christian community ultimately considered that, from its perspective, for all it knew, Paul was a saved sinner.

Furthermore, in appreciating how the “moment of conversion” is also one step in an extended process, we might consider what leads up to that moment. Suppose someone is converted suddenly and dramatically at a gospel meeting. What brought them to that meeting in the first place? In many cases, they had developed a relationship with a believer who invited them, and they agreed to come. All of this testifies to God’s ongoing prior work in their life. We might similarly recognize God’s work in Paul’s life prior to his Damascus Road experience. The most important question for Paul before his conversion was, “Who is Jesus?” He was convinced that Jesus was not the Messiah and had not risen from the dead, and so in his zeal for God, he persecuted the followers of Jesus. Well, he had the wrong answer. But he had the right question! It was alive in him, driving him, and he no doubt saw and heard much that ultimately helped him recognize that Jesus was the Messiah and had risen from the dead, for example, when he tried to make Christians renounce Jesus but they refused, despite threats, coercion, and punishment.

So I think the answer to your question is that we can speak meaningfully of the moment of Paul’s conversion, but we can also recognize how his conversion was a process. That’s a paradox, but so are many other things in the Christian life!

Thank you for your question. Here are a couple of other posts on this blog that relate to it.

Am I still considered a Christian if I haven’t been baptized?

What if I’ve never had “that moment” of asking Christ into my heart?

Is the opposite of faith certainty or doubt?

Q. In the movie Conclave, Cardinal Lawrence says (going by memory here, a risky proposition), “The greatest sin facing the Church is certainty.” A good friend of mine, an Episcopal priest, once told me, “The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.” However, I recently came across Matthew 21:21, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.” And also Romans 14:23, “But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” I consider myself a believer and a follower of Jesus. Help me resolve these seeming contradictions.  

In another post on this blog (linked below) I say, “The capacity for faith and the capacity for doubt are the same. If you did not have any doubts about what you believe, you would not be believing it by faith.” That seems to be what the character of Cardinal Lawrence means in the movie. He goes on to say, “Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand-in-hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery. And therefore, no need for faith.” In other words, the “certainty” that the cardinal describes as the “one sin which I have come to fear above all else” is a certainty based on something other than faith. It is a doctrinaire dogmatism based on tradition or rationalism.

I believe that the reason why Jesus could say “if you have faith and do not doubt” is not that faith and doubt are opposites, but that we can use one and the same capacity either to believe or to doubt. He means “if you use that capacity to believe rather than to doubt,” your prayers will be answered in the way described. Similarly Paul’s meaning in Romans would be “whoever uses that capacity to doubt is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from using that capacity to believe.”

We can think of many other capacities that we could use in one way or another. We might have an admirable potential capacity for persistence in carrying good projects to completion that we use instead to be stubborn and not open to reasonable persuasion. We might have an admirable capacity to enjoy life and help others find joy in life that we instead use to fool around when we should be working. And so forth. The point in both cases, and in all similar illustrations, is that the person would not be able to persist if they were not also able to be stubborn, and the person would not be able to find and share joy in life if they were not also able to fool around irresponsibly. The goal is to become able to use the capacity in the positive way in which God intends us to use it. And we should not beat ourselves up if we find ourselves in the learning curve. Doubt is evidence of capacity.

How can I fully believe and not doubt?

How did John the Baptist know that Jesus was the Messiah?

Q. How did John the Baptist know that Jesus was “the Lamb of God, which taketh the sin of the world” if, at that moment, the Holy Spirit hadn’t revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah? “The next day, John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29 KJV). “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:33 KJV).

These events are related out of chronological sequence in the Gospel of John for purposes of storytelling. Here they are in chronological sequence:

When God sends John to baptize, he tells him, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit” (verse 33). God does not tell John specifically who this man is. The descent of the Spirit is the sign that will identify him.
John begins to baptize people without knowing specifically who the Messiah is (verse 31, “I knew him not”).
John tells the Pharisees that he is not the Messiah himself, but the Messiah is coming (verses 24–27).
John sees Jesus coming toward him (verse 29a).
John sees the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on Jesus (verse 32).
Because of this, John says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (verse 29b).
John tells the crowds that Jesus is the person he said was coming (verse 30) and testifies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 34).

I hope this helps clarify the sequence of events. John knew that Jesus was the Lamb of God, and said so, because he had just seen the Spirit descend on him.

Is the old version of the NIV still in print?

Q. Stumbled across your website (researching if Boaz was already married) and read that you have worked on a version of the NIV. I love my original NIV and have been appalled at the changes made to it in recent years. Genesis 4:1 for instance. Do you know if the old version is still in print anywhere?

When a new Bible version is created, the translators and publishers release an initial edition with the expectation that they will get a lot of feedback over the next five years or so that they will be able to incorporate into a stable version that should be good for the next 20–25 years. But they recognize that after that, they will need to publish a further revision in order to take into account changes in the English language over that time and advances in scholarship regarding the biblical languages and culture.

The NIV has followed exactly this pattern. The first full NIV Bible was published in 1978 (following up on a 1973 New Testament), and after receiving and considering very extensive feedback over the following six years, the translation committee and publishers released the 1984 NIV, which is the edition that many people are still familiar with. To give one example, the 1978 NIV said in 1 Timothy 2:15 that “women will be kept safe through childbirth,” with a footnote that “kept safe” could also be translated “saved.” The 1984 NIV, reflecting the translators’ response to much input, said instead that “women will be saved through childbearing,” with a footnote explaining that “saved” could also be translated “restored.”

The NIV translation committee continued to receive and evaluate feedback, to consider the latest biblical scholarship, and to reflect on how the English language had been changing, and in 2011 it published the latest version of the NIV. This update incorporated many revisions, including the one that you mentioned. In Genesis 4:1, the 1978 and 1984 versions of the NIV had said that “Adam lay with his wife Eve.” The Hebrew says, “Adam knew Eve, his wife,” meaning that they had sexual relations. Hebrew is able to say this in plain language, but the biblical text uses an idiom here, “knew.” One principle of the NIV is that if the original uses an idiom, it tries to use a comparable idiom in English if possible. The translators considered that by 2011, the English expression “lay” no longer served this purpose as well as it had originally, so they replaced it with an expression that they considered current and comparable, “Adam made love to his wife Eve.”

It’s possible that this expression was perhaps a bit too current and also not quite comparable. Perhaps, in contemporary English, it is more informal than the biblical author’s tone, and some readers might even hear it as vulgar, which is certainly not the case with the Hebrew term “knew.” There is a good chance that the translators have been getting feedback about this, and they may be considering, for their next update, what other English expressions might be comparable and perhaps more appropriate. In fact, if you wish to share your own thoughts about this with the committee, you can send them in an email to: nivtranslation@harpercollins.com. You can also find much helpful further information about the NIV at this site: thenivbible.com.

One thing this site notes is that “in the latest 2011 update, about 95% of the text remains exactly the same as the 1984 NIV.” But the site also explains that the copyright holder of the NIV, Biblica (the International Bible Society), has decided not to continue to publish the 1984 NIV, since the 2011 update reflects the translation committee’s decisions about how best to address advances in scholarship and changes in the English language for contemporary audiences. However, if your copy of the 1984 NIV is just about worn out from use after forty years, and you still want to read that version, there are many secondhand copies in good condition available online from various sellers through sites such as eBay, Amazon, etc. I think it is a testimony to the excellent work that went into creating the 1984 NIV that it still speaks meaningfully to people today.

Why do Matthew and Luke’s account of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant differ in detail?

Q. Last week I read in Luke 7:1–10 about Jesus healing the centurion’s sick servant. Then I read the parallel account in Matthew 8:5–13. In the Luke account, Jesus doesn’t talk directly to the centurion, but in the Matthew account, he does. What a difference! It’s so personal in the Matthew account when the centurion says to Jesus, “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.” It doesn’t have quite the same impact when his friends say this for him in Luke 7:6. And perhaps the elders misrepresented the heart of the centurion to Jesus by saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him” (Luke 7:4). Why the difference in the accounts?

Paradoxically, these minor differences of detail in the gospels actually indicate to us their authenticity. They show us that the gospel writers didn’t collude. They didn’t get together and say, “Okay, that’s our story, and we’re sticking to it.” Instead, what we see in the gospels is the normal human process of information gathering and reporting. The gospels were written a generation after the events they report, based on information that was transmitted orally in the meantime. As we might expect as a result, there are minor differences of detail. Nevertheless, the overall outlines of events are still the same. Even more importantly, the major theological themes are the same.

There would certainly be a problem if, for example, in one gospel Jesus agreed to heal the centurion’s servant, but in another gospel he told him, “How dare you even ask me to help you? You’re one of the Roman oppressors of my people! I’m not going to do anything to help you!” Instead, both accounts give evidence of what Peter later stated explicitly after his own similar encounter with a Roman centurion who had faith in the God of Israel: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”

Both accounts also show that a miracle cannot be compelled. Roman soldiers had the right to order subject peoples to do work for them, for example, carrying a load for a mile, as in the famous example in the Sermon on the Mount (“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles”). So we would certainly also have a problem if in one account the centurion asked Jesus humbly and indirectly to help him (as in Matthew 8:6, where he just says, “Lord, my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly”), but in another account he ordered Jesus to heal his servant. A miracle is a gracious favor of God that meets faith in the recipient. It cannot be compelled, bought, or earned. As Peter said to Simon the magician, “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!” In both Matthew and Luke’s accounts, we see the centurion not asserting his military power to order or compel the miracle, but humbly requesting Jesus’ help. He does that in Matthew’s account by saying he is unworthy, and in Luke’s account by not even appearing in person.

Both accounts also demonstrate the power of Jesus. In each case, Jesus does not have to touch or even speak to the servant. He heals him from a distance with a word. This is like what Elisha did for the Aramean general Naaman, who was actually disappointed with it at first. He said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy!” Naaman was expecting a great performance worthy of his status. His servants wisely persuaded him to accept God’s means of healing with humility. But once again we would have a problem if one gospel portrayed Jesus healing with quiet power through a word, but another gospel portrayed him calling out loudly and waving his hands, as a powerful military official might have felt he deserved.

So not only are the major outlines of the event the same in both gospels, perhaps even more importantly, the themes relating to the nature of the kingdom of God are the same. Even so, we might still have a problem with the minor differences in detail. Isn’t the Bible the word of God? Wouldn’t God know what actually happened and inspire the biblical writers to get all the details straight?

I would say in response that the Bible is the only divinely inspired book we have, and so if we want to know what a divinely inspired book is like, we need to look at the Bible. And when we do, we discover that not only did God use existing human languages and literary forms to give us his word (rather than sending something down to us in a heavenly language and heavenly literature that we would have to decode), God also used, as I said earlier, the normal human process of information gathering and reporting. To me that speaks of God’s love for us, God’s affirmation of us, in working together with us humans, despite our finiteness and limitations, to create the Bible.

Do believers sin because they still have a sinful nature?

Q. I’ve heard that believers in Jesus still have a “sinful nature” or a desire within them towards sin. The book we’re using in our Bible study says that “because of this sinful nature, we commit actual sins, even as believers.”
But I think we can’t blame all our sinning on the sinful nature. Sometimes we can sin by our will, when it’s in opposition to the divine will. I think free will is free, but when it exceeds the will of God, which it can because it’s free, it approaches autonomy instead. If we head in this direction, in direct opposition with God’s will, it’s sin.
Some might use this to justify their position that Jesus could not have sinned, since he did not have a sinful nature. But he did have free will. I think it was in this sense that Jesus was truly tempted but praise God, he was sinless and our perfect sacrifice.
Adam and Eve didn’t have a sinful nature, but they sinned nevertheless. Satan tempted Eve with the same desire for autonomy and it worked. He told her that “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.” Perhaps Lucifer’s sin in the first place was that he went too far with free will in his desire for autonomy. What do you think?

I understand the question you are asking to be this: how can believers in Jesus, who are regenerated through faith and so are a new creation, still sin? Is it only because, in addition to having a redeemed nature, they still have a sinful nature that leads them into sin? Or do they also sin because they have free will and sometimes misuse it by seeking autonomy and going beyond the will of God? To show that the sinful nature is not the only cause of sin, you offer the examples of Adam and Eve, who did not have a sinful nature but who nevertheless sinned, and of Jesus, who also did not have a sinful nature but who, you suggest, could have sinned if he had chosen by his free will not to obey God.

Let me take up your points one at a time.

First, personally I do not think that believers in Jesus have two natures, a redeemed nature and a sinful nature. This idea was responsible for the translation in the 1984 New International Version (NIV) of the Greek term sarx as “the sinful nature” in many contexts. That translation itself further popularized the idea. But you may be aware that in the 2011 update to the NIV, in virtually all of those contexts the translation was changed to “the flesh.” That reflects a change in understanding on the part of the committee of some 15 established biblical scholars who are responsible for the NIV. They now consider the term sarx in these contexts to refer to an ingrained pattern of life that may carry forward from the time before a person became a believer and that is reinforced by the “world,” meaning the system of interests on this earth that are arrayed against God.

The repeated admonitions in Paul’s epistles are to live “not according to the flesh” but “according to the Spirit,” and to “put off” the “old man” (representing that former way of life). Paul says in Romans, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” I don’t think he would speak that way if believers had a sinful nature that inevitably led them to sin. The way Paul speaks indicates instead to me that believers, as regenerate persons empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit, have the capacity to learn a new way of life and to live it out victoriously. Nothing in them requires them to sin. They just need to unlearn their old ways and learn new ways, standing against the surrounding way of life. Inner healing may be necessary in order for them to become free of some entrenched patterns.

Regarding Jesus, you are in agreement with the consensus of traditional Christian interpretation when you say that he could have sinned. The historic debate was whether Jesus was “not able to sin” (non posse peccare) or “able not to sin” (posse non peccare), and it was resolved in favor of the latter position. Jesus was able not to sin because in his incarnation he was completely yielded to his Father’s will and completely dependent on the empowering of the Holy Spirit. In that way Jesus sets an example of every one of his followers. If we too are completely yielded to God’s will and completely dependent on the Holy Spirit, we will not sin.

You recognize that what I have said to this point supports your suggestion that sin may come from the misuse of free will rather than from a sinful nature within us that compels us to sin. Before we are regenerate, we are in bondage to sin. Sin has power over us that we are not strong enough to break, despite our best intentions. But once we are regenerate, there is a greater power within us, the Holy Spirit, who makes us “able not to sin.” As Paul also wrote in Romans, “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” But we must use our will to choose to do God’s will. In this Jesus also sets an example for believers. As the book of Hebrews says, when Jesus came to earth, he said, in effect, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.”

I think there is a process of discovery that we go through as believers. Previously we were fending for ourselves, perhaps thinking of God as someone who was distant and uncaring or who was angry and hostile. Once we are restored to fellowship with God through faith in Jesus, we really do need to be “transformed by the renewing of our minds” and recognize that God loves us more than we could ever imagine. What God wants for us will make us happy and flourishing and a blessing to all those around us. So we should gladly and eagerly say to God, “Please show me your will so I can do it!” Ultimately we will be motivated in this by our love for God, which will be prompted by our growing recognition of how much God loves us.

Augustine, who participated prominently in the discussion of “not able to sin” versus “able not to sin,” also once said, “Love God, and do what you will.” In other words, nothing sinful can come from pure love for God. So rather than trying to sort out which of two natures an action might reflect (since there probably aren’t two natures anyway), or even whether free will is shading over into autonomy, I think we should just try to open our eyes to see how much God loves us. The evidence is everywhere. We will love God in return, and consequently we will want—we will will—to do his will.