I know, I know…you think after you read the title that I am a heretic.  You’re thinking in your mind “grace is always doing what is right”.  And, in many ways, I totally agree with you, but take a read over the next page and think about the statement from a different angle.  Don’t write me off too quickly.

I have thought that “grace is doing what is best, not what is right” is a totally true statement for a long time now.  My simple reasoning was that doing what is “right” in many circumstances is a grey area.  It would seem that David should have been killed after committing adultery and having a baby with Bethsheba, and then especially after he had her husband murdered.  At least the old testament law would have demanded such a consequence.  So why wasn’t he?  Furthermore, even outside of the life of David, isn’t God infinite and our minds finite?  How can the finite determine in every grey area, every variable, what is ultimately right and wrong?  So, not knowing what is necessarily “right”, it is always better to do what is best.  Having said that, I have not always found that to be a justifying solution to my dilemma.  But then, another piece of the puzzle came together…

This week, I was once again discussing the sermon on the mount with a few precious brothers.  We have been reading through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5) and looking at three questions…what does each one mean?  …why are they in the order that they are in?  …why are these the basis of Biblical manhood (and womanhood…it just happens to be all men in the discussion).  We have discovered that poor in spirit (the first beatitude) is a combination of not having any pride, nor any self pity (another form of pride).  Pride is puffing yourself up and pretending you do not need God’s help.  Self pity is pretending to be a helpless victim and feeling that you deserve better instead of taking responsibility for who you are and dealing with it.  That’s just sad pride at the end of the day.  Being poor in spirit really means that you have an accurate assessment of yourself as a sinful person whom needs help…but is not helpless because God has provided help.  The second beatitude is mourning.  Mourning means that when you realize your catastrophic need, you are sober about it, and are broken.   But it is more than this…mourning means that you are broken for the world around you which is also crushed under the weight of the consequences of sin and sin itself.  The reality is that you can’t really mourn until you are poor in spirit.  If you don’t have a accurate assessment of your own situation, and others, then there is no reason to mourn.  Then, after realizing that you are poor in spirit and mourning in light of it, meekness is the result (the third beatitude).  Meekness means that you respond with the realization that without God you can’t do anything.  This seems to be where the real dying to self starts.  Meekness could be seen as a weakness, but only to the person whom isn’t poor in spirit.  The truly poor in spirit look at the person whom is not meek and realizes that their false strength, their illusory power, is nothing more than foolishness.  You can’t be meek until you mourn, and your can’t mourn until you are poor in spirit.  In fact, this applies to all the beatitudes…you cannot move onto the next until you have realized the prior…they build on each other.

So last week, we finally made it to the fourth beatitude, righteousness.  Actually we have been on righteousness for a while now, but last week it finally started to unfold to us.  It is a real privilege to tear into a passage like this with guys who aren’t afraid to ask tough questions and not rely on preconceptions, which are often misconceptions.  We began to see that the definition of righteousness is Jesus.  Jeremiah 23:6 says “the Lord is our righteousness” and who could Jeremiah be speaking about if it wasn’t for Jesus?  So if Jesus is our righteousness…whom and what is Jesus?  If you will, Jesus is the ultimate right on doctrinal statement lived out perfectly.  And that, (truth lived out perfectly) is our new working definition of righteousness.  Righteousness is not simply right doctrine.  Now, skip down a few verses.  In Matthew 5:17-20 we see that Jesus says the law is perfect and it will not be abolished.  Then Jesus goes on to say “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”.  It seems to me that what Jesus is saying to them is that the doctrine of the scribes and the Pharisees is right on.  He says the law is perfect, and that he did not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it.  The Pharisee’s had right on doctrinal statement, but they had no mission statement.  Imagine that, their doctrine is the most accurate of anyone’s, but they will never enter into heaven.  Why?  Because righteousness is not right doctrine.  And, although they have right doctrine, and know the law and God’s word better than anyone…they aren’t going to enter heaven.  How freakish is that?    In order to get into heaven, you have to be righteous, not just have right on doctrine.   

But somehow it all makes sense.  If the Pharisees could have rewritten the beatitudes, they would have put doctrine at the top of the list because doctrine was most important to them.  But what Jesus is saying in the beatitudes is “you won’t even know what righteousness is unless you are first poor in spirit, second know how to mourn, and third are meek”.   You may know doctrine, but this is far from righteousness, because righteousness is your doctrinal statement and your missional statement all tied up together in your life. 

So, back to the original statement:  Grace is doing what is best, not what is right.  It seems that the biggest problems with “right” is that it hardly ever takes poor in spirit, mourning, and meekness into consideration.  Being right is typically the act of declaring doctrine and interpreting it through a finite perspective (which is a bizarre concept all and of itself) and then determining judgment.  But righteousness, our Jesus, is so much more.  It is doctrine (truth) applied rightly.   

Everytime we declare to know what is right (especially in the grey areas), it seems that the best thing to do in determining if our definition will hold up, is to see if we are “poor in spirit”, if we “mourn”, and if we are “meek”.  If we are not characterized by these things, then we are nothing more than Pharisees who have put doctrine at the top of the list and will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  That is so convicting to me, and scary.

So is grace doing what is right?  Certainly it is.  But if your definition of right comes from right doctrine instead of the righteousness that comes fourth in the line up of mandatory precursors of beatitudes then beware.  Your definition of right is wrong, because the Pharisees definition of right was wrong.  But, when we place ourselves in the humble position of poor in spirit, when we learn how to mourn over our lives and the world, and when we respond in gentleness, meekness, then and only then, do we have the faintest chance of knowing what righteousness is.

I guess I would ask…is the moral majority righteous?  I would definitely say they have right on doctrine.  But the application has left us wanting and both the church and the world is getting tired of them.  Is the husband who demands submission by his wife righteous?  I think he might have a Biblical leg to stand on, but depending on his application, he could be in danger of hell.   The husband who does what is right, but defines this in doctrine instead of how the beatitudes define righteousness, is nothing more than a insensitive Biblical bully.  What about the doctrinally correct Christian or church that declares themselves “right” and everyone else “wrong”?  We have all seen what this type of declaration does, and we have all left hungry and thirsty for something else.  And, interestingly enough, Jesus says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness shall be satisfied.  So what happened?  Could these examples be of well meaning people whom are doing what is “right” but not what is “best”? 

Our only chance of being righteous is grace.  The beatitudes are the backdrop of grace, and I would argue that they show us that Grace is doing what is best, not what is right.

I welcome your comments on this;  I am not finished thinking, and desire to wrestle this out together.

Why I would like to see the English Standard Version become the most common Bible of the English-speaking church, for preaching, teaching, memorizing, and study.

The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth
and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight, O LORD,
my rock and my redeemer.

--Psalm 19:7-14

I love the Bible the way I love my eyes—not because my eyes are lovely, but because without them I can't see what's lovely. Without the Bible I could not see "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4). Without the Bible I could not know "the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph. 3:8). Without the Bible I would not know that I am a great sinner and that Christ is a great Savior. I love the Bible because it gives the wisdom that leads to salvation, and shows me that this salvation is nothing less than seeing and savoring the glory of Christ forever. And then provides for me inexhaustible ways of seeing and knowing and enjoying Christ.

I praise God that we have the Bible in English. What a gift! What a treasure! We cannot begin to estimate what this is worth to Christians and churches, and even to the unbelievers and the cultures of the English-speaking world. Ten thousand benefits flow from the influence of this book that we are not even aware of. And the preaching of this Word in tens of thousands of pulpits across America is more important than every media outlet in the nation.

I would rather have people read any translation of the Bible—no matter how weak—than to read no translation of the Bible. If there could be only one translation in English, I would rather it be my least favorite than that there be none. God uses every version to bless people and save people.

But the issue before the church in the English-speaking world today is not "no translation vs. a weak translation." It is between many precious English Bibles. A Bible does not cease to be precious and powerful because its translators overuse paraphrase and put way too much of their own interpretation into the Bible. That's the way God's Word is! It breaks free from poor translations and poor preaching—for which I am very thankful. But even though the weakest translation is precious, and is used by God to save and strengthen sinful people, better translations would be a great blessing to the church and an honor to Christ.

The King James Version

When I turned 15—on January 11, 1961—my parents gave me a beautiful, leather-bound King James Bible. I loved it. I loved the smell of it and the feel of it, and the dedication inside ("This book will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from this book," Mother and Daddy), and most of all the message of it for my embattled teenage years. God met me in this book day after day when I was a teenager.

The Revised Standard Version

Three and a half years later as a freshman at Wheaton I remember the very place in the bookstore where I picked up the first Bible I ever bought for myself, a Revised Standard Version. It was close enough to the King James so that I felt at home, but its English was not Elizabethan; it was my English. So I was doubly at home. This became my reading, meditating, memorizing Bible for the next 37 years.

The New American Standard Bible

But I hit a problem in 1980. I became the preaching pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church. What version to use? The RSV was out of print—they weren't making pew Bibles any more. I needed a literal version with all the words and phrases as close to the original as possible. I could not preach from another kind of Bible, because I made my points from the very wording of the Bible, and when the wording vanished into paraphrase I could not make my points with clarity and authority. The most literal modern translation was the NASB, and that is what I chose. So I have preached from the NASB for over 20 years. But I groaned that it was never going to be the common reading, memorizing Bible of the people. It is too awkward and unnatural in the way it flows.

The New International Version

Key question: the NIV appeared in 1978. I read it. Why didn't I use it? The reason I didn't use it is the reason I am here tonight. The NIV is the best-selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. The NIV makes up about 30% of all Bible sales. Among evangelicals the percentage would be far above 30% and is probably the Bible most evangelicals read most often. And the one most pastors use in preaching. Why am I not on board?

Not only am I not on board. I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church. I feel so strongly about this that I volunteered to do this tonight before I was asked. There is no coercion here. I feel what I am about to say with a passion built up over 25 years. I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it.

Now let me say again that the NIV is the precious Word of God. Oh, how careful we must be not to belittle the Word of God. And yet we must not put any human translation above criticism. God has used the NIV to bring millions of people to faith in Christ. But at the same time I believe there have been negative effects that could be avoided. My biggest concern has to do with preaching. When a paraphrase becomes the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the church, preaching is weakened—robust expository exultation in the pulpit is made more difficult. Preaching that gives clear explanations and arguments from the wording of specific Biblical texts tends to be undermined when a Bible paraphrases instead of preserving the original wording on good English. And when that kind of preaching is undermined, the whole level of Christian thinking in the church goes down, and a Bible-saturated worldview is weakened, and the ability of the people—and even the pastors themselves-to root their thoughts and affections in firm Biblical ground diminishes.

The English Standard Version

My aim tonight is to help you be persuaded that exposing millions of people (pastors, teachers, students, laypeople) to the ESV would undo the dominance of the NIV and put in its place a more literal, and yet a beautifully readable, memorizable Bible—the English Standard Version. And this would be a good thing.

In the following examples of NIV paraphrasing compared to the more literal ESV there are four convictions at stake.

1. A more literal translation respects the original author's way of writing. It is a way of honoring the inspired writers.

2. Translators are fallible and they may mislead the English reader if they use unnecessary paraphrases to bring out one possible meaning and conceal others.

3. A more literal translation gives preachers more confidence that they can preach what the English text says with authority that it reflects what the original Greek or Hebrew text says.

4. A more literal translation which preserves ambiguities that are really there in the original keeps open the possibility of new insight by future Bible readers.

I do not claim that the ESV is without its own level of "paraphrasing." Some will always be necessary. And there will always be disagreements about how much is necessary. I am simply arguing that the ESV is the best balance available of readability and literalness. I hope that it becomes the standard for the church.

Appendix 1: Examples of NIV Paraphrasing Compared to the More Literal ESV (Compiled April 11, 2003)

Romans 1:5

ESV Through [Christ] we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith (hupakoen pisteos) for the sake of his name among all the nations.

NIV Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

Romans 3:20

ESV By works of the law (ex ergon nomou) no human being will be justified in his sight.

NIV No one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.

Romans 11:11

ESV Did they stumble in order that they might fall (hina pesosin)? By no means!

NIV Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

Romans 13:8

ESV Owe no one anything (Medeni meden opheilete), except to love each other.

NIV Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another.

Hebrews 6:1

ESV . . . not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works (nekron ergon)

NIV . . . not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death.

James 2:12

ESVSo speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty (nomou eleutherias).

NIVSpeak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.

1 Peter 1:20

ESV He was foreknown (proegnosmenou) before the foundation of the world.

NIV He was chosen before the creation of the world.

Appendix 2: Two Examples of the Effect on Preaching

John 11:1-6

ESV Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill." 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, (oun) when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

NIV Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick." 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." 5 Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

NOTE: It is impossible to make the point from the NIV that Jesus' delay is an expression of love for Mary and Martha and Lazarus, and thus draw out the point that love sometimes does hard things because seeing the glory of God is a more precious gift than being sick or even dead.

Romans 8:35-36

ESV Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (36) )As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed (thanatoumetha) all the day long."

NIVWho shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long."

NOTE: From the NIV translation one could argue from a health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel" that "famine and nakedness" will not happen to God's children (as they seem to in verse 35) because the Old Testament support that Paul quotes in verse 36 only says "we face death," but not that we really "are being killed." So the paraphrase "face death" removes an utterly crucial argument that Paul gave and that the preacher needs to make the true point that true Christians really do get killed and really do face famine and nakedness.

Maui is everything everyone said it would be.  I am the typical skeptic, and therefore didn't really buy into all the hype.  But...it's all that and more.  We came home and immediately started to surf the net to find out how we could go again.  Leaving there sort of left an emotional hole in my life.  The beauty of the place, the relaxation of checking out of reality, the awesome time with my wife, all that goodness and it had to come to an end.  And I didn't want it to come to an end. 

And I find myself depressed...wishing I was wealthy enough to just move there or visit whenever I want to.  It's the same type of depression I find that I have when I go to a U2 concert.  The times there are just so amazing and overwhelming that I get an emotionally high from being there and it is usually followed by a big downer.  So what to do?  An emptiness inside, a discontent and longing for more, a skewed perspective that needs to be adjusted.

A skewed perspective that needs to be adjusted?  As I was sitting on the Maui beach hoping that the end of our time there wouldn't come too soon, I began to realize the problem I have when I have these amazing encounters.  My perspective becomes hijacked by the intensity and greatness of the moment.  I realized that in the U2 concerts I was awed by the power of the influencial ability (I'd love to be able to influence like that), and I realized that I was seduced by the coolness (Bono's arrogance generally defines coolness in my mind) and I find myself wishing I could have the same.  The beach on Maui gave me a desire to be there all the time, wishing I had the wealth to do this, and being jealous of those who were, and I find myself wishing I could have the same.

Do you see what happened?  In both cases, my perspective had shifted from God and onto whatever was emotionally stirring my heart at that moment.  In it all I found that depression was the result...a wishing for something that I didn't have. 

And I think this is what David must have felt like in so many of the Psalms.  David got caught up in the emotion of the moment, and then found himself in a time of depression and despair.  Honestly, I think we have all been there, will be there, or are there right now.  And what was David's answer?  In many of the Psalms we begin to see him focus once again on the great character of God.  We saw him name the attributes of God's character one at a time and meditate on them. We see him walk in awe of the salvation that had been provided.  We see him look with joy to the future and know all that God had planned for him in life and in death.  We see him confidently talking about heaven and all that was to come.  And in this, David's joy was restored;  his strength was renewed.  His emotions that focused on all that he couldn't have turned and focused on all that he did have in Christ. 

And this is where the tires hit the pavement in Jesus being better.  It is knowing that all that we have in Him is better than all we have on this earth.  It is knowing that the emotional highs and lows can be brought captive under God's great wing by focusing on His character. I realized that when I let my mind become captive to all the emotional highs and lows of what I desire at the moment (which tend to remind me of all that I don't have) I need to take these and tell God about them, and then meditate on all the goodness that I have in Jesus.  All Jesus' attritributes, all the control He has, all the authority He has, all the power He has, all the dominion He has, all the treasure He has, all the pleasure He has, all the future He has in store for all of us who trust in Him.

Instead of being strung out emotionally, and needing a fix...I find my fix.  And my fix is not damaging to myself or anyone else around me, but is perfectly good, perfectly pleasing.

Do you have a skewed perspective?  I need mine renewed all the time.