# New ESV Transformation Bible Released 10/1/13



## DMcFadden (Oct 2, 2013)

Of the printing of new specialty Bibles there is no end and too much attention to the nuances of Christian publishing is wearisome to the soul.

Nevertheless, Bryan Chapell's new product boasts an impressive list of contributors.

*Old Testament*
Genesis Willem VanGemeren
Exodus Sean Lucas
Leviticus Jay Sklar
Numbers Michael Morales
Deuteronomy Mark Futato
Joshua Mike Horton
Judges Brian Aucker
Ruth Mary Beth McGreevy
1–2 Samuel Phil Long
1–2 Kings Miles Van Pelt
1–2 Chronicles Miles Van Pelt
Ezra Kathleen Nielson
Nehemiah Kathleen Nielson
Esther Elyse Fitzpatrick
Job Paul Zahl
Psalms George Robertson/
Bruce Ware
Proverbs Ray Ortlund
Ecclesiastes Doug O’Donnell
Song of Solomon Doug O’Donnell
Isaiah Kelly Kapic
Jeremiah Graeme Goldsworthy
Lamentations Graeme Goldsworthy
Ezekiel Greg Gilbert
Daniel Bryan Chapell
Hosea Jim Hamilton
Joel Tim Witmer
Amos David Helm
Obadiah Michael Glodo
Jonah Colin Smith
Micah Nancy Guthrie
Nahum Michael Glodo
Habakkuk Julius Kim
Zephaniah Darrin Patrick
Haggai Iain Duguid
Zechariah Iain Duguid
Malachi Iain Duguid

*New Testament*
Matthew Frank Thielman
Mark Hans Bayer
Luke Jonathan Pennington
John Scotty Smith
Acts Justin Holcomb
Romans Bob Yarbrough
1 Corinthians Jimmy Agan
2 Corinthians Stephen Um
Galatians Ian Smith
Ephesians Kevin DeYoung
Philippians Jon Dennis
Colossians Julius Kim
1–2 Thessalonians Burk Parsons
1–2 Timothy Kent Hughes
Titus J. D. Greear
Philemon Julius Kim
Hebrews Robert Peterson
James Dan Doriani
1–2 Peter Jared Wilson
1–3 John Mike Bullmore
Jude Jared Wilson
Revelation Jim Hamilton

For video promo: http://vimeo.com/68544918

For interview with Bryan Chapell: http://vimeo.com/71815017

For some sample quotes from the notes: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-quotes-from-the-gospel-transformation-bible



> The apostle Paul summed up his whole ministry as existing “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). That single-minded goal is the heartbeat of the ESV Gospel Transformation Bible. Produced out of the conviction that the Bible is a unified message of God’s grace culminating in Jesus, it is a significant new tool to help readers see Christ in all the Bible, and grace for all of life.
> 
> The Gospel Transformation Bible features all-new book introductions and gospel-illuminating notes written by a team of over 50 outstanding pastors and scholars. This specially prepared material outlines passage-by-passage God’s redemptive purposes of grace that echo all through Scripture and culminate in Christ. The notes not only explain but also apply the text in a grace-centered way. Focusing on heart transformation rather than mere behavior modification, their points of application emphasize the Hows and Whys of practical application to daily living—in short, how the gospel transforms us from the inside out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 2, 2013)

The entire book of Jeremiah can be downloaded here:
http://static.crossway.org/excerpt/bibles/gospel-transformation-bible/gtb-jeremiah-download.pdf

Here is a digital sampler from other areas of the Bible with the list of contributors:
http://static.crossway.org/excerpt/bibles/gospel-transformation-bible/gtb.sampler.pdf

It is also available on the Kindle.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 5, 2013)

It captures the idea that Jesus knew what he was saying on the Emmaus Road (Luke 24) about all of Scripture bearing witness to him. Bryan Chapell not only wrote a preaching book on the topic, but, as editor of the Bible, makes sure that the Christocentric theme of the Bible comes through clearly.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 5, 2013)

I must admit that when I first saw this in my CBD members catalogue, I was drawn to it & contemplated purchasing a copy but I haven't YET. I am getting weary of specialty Bibles myself. Although I am a huge advocate of a Christocentric approach to reading Scripture (especially in my Private Worship), I am a little leery the Trinity may become rather lopsided ... Does anyone else have reservations? hesitance? pause? 

Are you recommending the Transformation Bible or just announcing it?


----------



## jgilberAZ (Oct 5, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> Ruth Mary Beth McGreevy
> Ezra Kathleen Nielson
> Nehemiah Kathleen Nielson
> Esther Elyse Fitzpatrick
> Micah Nancy Guthrie



Isn't this considered "teaching?"

I'm confused as to how to view this.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 5, 2013)

jgilberAZ said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Ruth Mary Beth McGreevy
> ...


Great question!
I was asking myself the same thing.

Two things immediately came to mind...

Were you planning on using it for corporate worship? 
NOT LIKELY.
Do you sing songs composed by women in corporate worship (I know of quite a few female hymn composers)?
If you are not EP, MOST LIKELY.

I don't have near as big of a problem with women pointing out Christ in the Old Testament of Scripture (Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester & Micah) in a book for personal study as I do singing songs composed by women in the corporate worship of God (which is considered "teaching").


----------



## Philip (Oct 5, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> I don't have near as big of a problem with women pointing out Christ in the Old Testament of Scripture (Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester & Micah) in a book for personal study as I do singing songs composed by women in the corporate worship of God



We have warrant for that in Scripture, actually, in Miriam and Deborah.



jgilberAZ said:


> Isn't this considered "teaching?"



Reflection on Scripture (theology) is the task of all Christians, not merely those called as teachers.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 5, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> Were you planning on using it for corporate worship?
> NOT LIKELY.



You don't think using the Bible in corporate worship happens often?


****separate from above****



I wouldn't buy it.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 5, 2013)

Philip said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have near as big of a problem with women pointing out Christ in the Old Testament of Scripture (Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester & Micah) in a book for personal study as I do singing songs composed by women in the corporate worship of God
> ...



The songs by Mariam & Deborah are Holy Spirit INSPIRED CANONICAL Songs ... the songs composed by women & sung in corporate worship that I had in mind are *uninspired non-canonical hymns*.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 5, 2013)

Romans922 said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> > Were you planning on using it for corporate worship?
> ...


Please do not take my words out of context. I was speaking of the contributions by women pointing out Christ in the Old Testament in the "Transformation" Bible NOT "the Bible" itself. That said, I don't think the Bible us used nearly enough in congregations where the singing of God's Word is put on the same level as the uninspired hymns of men/women or not sung at all (but that is for another thread).


----------



## bookslover (Oct 5, 2013)

Crossway's unrelenting, non-stop marketing campaign for the ESV - now in its 12th year! 

I like the translation, but I think Crossway needs to give it a rest...


----------



## Jack K (Oct 5, 2013)

Many of the contributors on that list have written things that have been helpful to me, including some of the women. None of them is my elder. The fact that I read what they say doesn't put any of them in authority over me; it just makes them wise brothers and sisters whom I find helpful—much as I find both men and women who write things here on this board to be helpful without treating their words as having authority over me.

It sounds like the contributions to this publication will include a lot of good stuff. I may well pick up a copy and read many of the notes and articles.


----------



## JM (Oct 5, 2013)

I'll stick with th AV.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 5, 2013)

I don't believe that many of these people qualify as _biblical scholars_ (in the technical sense) who have the expertise to write a study Bible.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 5, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> I don't believe that many of these people qualify as _biblical scholars_ (in the technical sense) who have the expertise to write a study Bible.



More true if you were asking for translators. The purpose of the book is to offer a kind of "application Bible" centered in the Gospel that does not become therapeutic moralistic deism like so many broad evangelical efforts. As Crossway puts it:



> The notes not only explain but also apply the text in a grace-centered way. Focusing on heart transformation rather than mere behavior modification, their points of application emphasize the Hows and Whys of practical application to daily living—in short, how the gospel transforms us from the inside out.


----------



## psycheives (Oct 6, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> jgilberAZ said:
> 
> 
> > DMcFadden said:
> ...



Wait, I don't get it? Why does anyone see this as "bad"? Women CAN teach! We teach men math, economics, public speaking. We correct men's unbiblical interpretation of scripture all the time. We preach the gospel, teaching men about Jesus and about the gospel. What is wrong with any of this? Women can teach men spiritual things. Refusing to learn truth from someone just because that individual is female sounds sexist. There is nothing unbiblical about women teaching men. 

However, women are not to be pastors in authority over men. This is a completely different issue.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 6, 2013)

psycheives said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> > jgilberAZ said:
> ...



And, I honestly don't have a problem with women teaching (the way you define it) OUTSIDE of corporate worship. That was the point. If these women were teaching these things during corporate worship (their contributions to the Gospel Transformation Bible were being used during corporate worship) then it would be an issue but it is highly unlikely that a "Reformed" minister would do such a thing. It is much more likely that they will sing a noncanonical uninspired hymn written by a women (which is teaching during corporate worship). My underlying point was that most of the Reformed congregations today have no problem singing hymns written by women but get all bent out of shape about women "teaching." Where is the consistency?

In case you missed my earlier comment, I am interested in this "application" or "specialty" Bible but haven't purchased it "YET!"


----------



## Philip (Oct 6, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> If these women were teaching these things during corporate worship (their contributions to the Gospel Transformation Bible were being used during corporate worship) then it would be an issue



Are you saying that you would have a problem with quoting a woman in the context of corporate worship? Because that would seem to be taking it a bit far.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 6, 2013)

Philip said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> > If these women were teaching these things during corporate worship (their contributions to the Gospel Transformation Bible were being used during corporate worship) then it would be an issue
> ...


 I am sincerely sorry my comments have been so difficult to comprehend. 

No, I wouldn't have a problem with a quote. I would have a problem with preaching from "a woman's contribution to an application/specialty Bible" rather than preaching the Scriptures themselves... 

My comments may prove to have a little more clarity if you read them with a little more charity.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 6, 2013)

Dennis E. McFadden,
Thank you for sharing. Your post are most helpful to me. This one has peaked my curiosity.
I may have to purchase the Gospel Transformation Bible sooner than I had planned to.
As for this thread, I'm stepping out.
In Christian Love,
Jessica


----------



## Andres (Oct 6, 2013)

I'm with Jessica - I feel a bit uneasy about the female contributors as well.



psycheives said:


> Wait, I don't get it? Why does anyone see this as "bad"? Women CAN teach! We teach men math, economics, public speaking. We correct men's unbiblical interpretation of scripture all the time. We preach the gospel, teaching men about Jesus and about the gospel. What is wrong with any of this? Women can teach men spiritual things. Refusing to learn truth from someone just because that individual is female sounds sexist. There is nothing unbiblical about women teaching men.
> However, women are not to be pastors in authority over men. This is a completely different issue.



_"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." _- 1 Tim 2:12 

I'm certainly open to correction, but I don't read this verse as dealing solely with the pastoral office.


----------



## Philip (Oct 7, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> No, I wouldn't have a problem with a quote. I would have a problem with preaching from "a woman's contribution to an application/specialty Bible" rather than preaching the Scriptures themselves...



Ok. I'm still confused, given that I've never heard a preacher preach from the notes on Scripture rather than on the Scripture itself. The contributions here are usually in the form of notes and I would have a problem with preaching from them whether it was a man or a woman who contributed to them.



Andres said:


> I'm certainly open to correction, but I don't read this verse as dealing solely with the pastoral office.



Can you elaborate?


----------



## Andres (Oct 7, 2013)

Philip said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly open to correction, but I don't read this verse as dealing solely with the pastoral office.
> ...



Sure...I was mostly responding to this specific post below:



psycheives said:


> Women CAN teach! We teach men math, economics, public speaking. We correct men's unbiblical interpretation of scripture all the time. *We preach the gospel, teaching men about Jesus and about the gospel.* What is wrong with any of this? Women can teach men spiritual things. Refusing to learn truth from someone just because that individual is female sounds sexist. *There is nothing unbiblical about women teaching men. *
> However, women are not to be pastors in authority over men. This is a completely different issue.



Now I will agree with Psyche on her first premise - I have no qualms about a woman teaching math, economics, etc. However, the bold portions I would disagree with her. I do not believe women should be preachers of the gospel and based on 1 Tim 2:12, I think there is something very unbiblical about women teaching men. And I think this goes beyond just the specific role of the pastorate. For example, I would feel uneasy about a women leading a Sunday school class with adult men in it.


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 8, 2013)

Perhaps Psycheives is referring to witnessing where she say's about preaching and not actual preaching as such?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Oct 8, 2013)




----------



## Free Christian (Oct 9, 2013)

Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.


----------



## kodos (Oct 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.



Is that an issue for you since you are using it?


----------



## Logan (Oct 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.



Brett, I know you like the KJV but maybe this is a little out of place? Yet, how do you feel having a drunken Arminian on the KJV translation committee? Or a high-church Anglican who was close to Roman Catholic in some of his views? And yet, despite having some theological differences with several of the translators, I still have a huge respect for the KJV. In fact, I'm currently waiting for my calfskin copy with the metrical psalms to arrive in the mail 

On topic, I'm not really seeing a problem with the notes for personal use. Otherwise I should avoid reading anything written by women.

Oh, and hello Rom.


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.



I think we've strayed quite far from the original post here. It also seems that we have lost sight of the fact that these are written study notes. If (as a man) your conscience is bothered by learning something theological from a woman, just read the notes to the other books, or don't buy this Study Bible. Perhaps, though, you might recognize that some of the people who will use the Study Bible are in fact women, who may be very edified by the writing of other godly women. 

In addition, do you ever read anything theological written by unbelievers? I know that I often read commentaries written by unbelievers and benefit from their insights. In one sense I am being taught by them, but it is not at all the same thing as have them preach, lead or even facilitate a Bible study in my church. If I can do that, why could I not read and profit from the theological writings of godly women? I've certainly learned much theological truth from conversations with my own wife, and am glad when other Christians (men and women) can learn similar things from her. She will never preach in our church, but she can certainly edify people through her writing, counseling and other conversations, without ever usurping authority from me or the elders of the church.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Perhaps Psycheives is referring to witnessing where she say's about preaching and not actual preaching as such?



Yes, I think it important to not read into what might have been an infelicitous choice of words, by our sister, Psycheives. 

In a thread apparently spawned by this one, she has shown herself to be thoughtful and open to any correction offered from careful study of Scripture. I am blessed whenever I see encounter sort of behavior from any person, male or female, and it convicts me of my own stubbornness.


----------



## mossy (Oct 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that *there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.*




And you know this how? If true, were they translators? 
Terry


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 10, 2013)

mossy said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that *there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.*
> ...



I am not interested in getting into this subject other than to make an historical observation: one was a stylistic editor with a pretty widely published defense of her lesbianism (she even received awards from a number of gay organizations and writes about her coming out of the closet; currently she lives with her domestic partner). 

The other charge is inferential (possibly libelous) and involves a prominent scholar and translator about whom rumors circulated for years prior to his death, partly due to his open support for the advocacy organization Evangelicals Concerned. Some people accused this man of being gay because he was a lifelong bachelor and made statements in the 80s about homosexuality such as: “I think, as those who love the inerrant Word of God, we want to be doubly sure that we read that Word correctly. Jesus says that His yoke is easy and His burden light. Let us make sure that as we put a burden on anyone such as complete celibacy we do so because we are 100% sure that this is Jesus’ burden. Otherwise we should leave this to the individual conscience."

I'm not sure that proving that a translator was a sinner proves much more than that he was a fallen human being. How many Bible translators were drunks, materialistic, adulterous, or guilty of any number of other sins? The NIV is one of my LEAST favorite translations. However, I'm not interested in trashing it on the basis of the genetic fallacy.


----------



## Rayn (Oct 10, 2013)

YES! I read months back that Michael Horton was at work writing notes on Joshua for a new ESV study Bible, and I suspected it was this one.  I'll pick it up when my income improves shortly.

Other than that, did Bryan Chapell select all these guys? If so, somewhat intriguing that he selected a premillenialist for Revelation. Hamilton did write quite an impressive work on the central theme of Scripture, however, "God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgment," and he's quite an able exegete when he's not getting Israel/Church wrong. xP


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 10, 2013)

That's a fair question to ask me Logan. I ask myself, am I a sinner too? Some of us our sins go before us and are apparent to people, some are in a sense hidden from sight, from all but God. Yes of course I am a sinner, and still struggle with sin to this day. I believe everyone who is involved in any translation is guilty of sin, every person alive so. The question is, does that sin cause another to stumble, or to believe or take something the wrong way. Not see the proper truth? Did the person who had a battle with alcohol or believe a doctrine a different to me have any effect on the translation? I don't see any removal from the KJV or change of "drunkards, or winebibbers" nor any doctrine compromise made anywhere. So I don't see their sins, like I am a sinner too, have any effect or cause a compromise in doctrine or teaching. They did not cause their brother to stumble regardless of their sin. If I saw a translation that had a drinker on board and that translation had taken out or changed reference's to drinking or being a drunkard to something else then I would say "hey what's going on there?"
But I do see changes made to the NIV where references to sodomites, sodomite and effeminate have gone. Been changed and altered! So no I do not see where I have grounds to say that a person who battled their own particular sin of drinking or someone believing a doctrine different to me had any effect whatsoever. I sin, they sinned, we are the same. I cannot say the same for the NIV. Not in regards to their sin, but in regards to its effect on the translation. Coincidence that they worked on it and those changes were made? Sorry to everyone if I did take things off track. I will leave it at that.


----------



## Logan (Oct 10, 2013)

"sodomites" occurs 4 times in KJV. Each time in NIV it is translated "male shrine prostitutes" (Strong's says the Hebrew word means "male temple prostitute").
"sodomite" occurs 1 time in KJV. Same Hebrew word, NIV says "man...shrine prostitute".
"effeminate" occurs 1 time in KJV. NIV apparently combines the two Greek words and says "men who have sex with men".

So...it's been "changed and altered" to say the exact same thing, and perhaps more clearly? In fact, perhaps the KJV is the one in error here, as "sodomite" derives from the town of Sodom, and the Hebrew word does not imply a reference as far as I know. The translators appear to have used an English colloquialism. Actually, it is misleading because it (perhaps incorrectly) implies the major sin of Sodom was homosexuality, and Ezekiel 16:49 says their sin was pride and not caring for the poor.

I am no fan of the NIV, but I really dislike trashing other translations, no matter how much you like the KJV. If you want to continue this conversation, I'd suggest moving to a new thread.


----------



## Bad Organist (Oct 10, 2013)

Logan said:


> "sodomites" occurs 4 times in KJV. Each time in NIV it is translated "male shrine prostitutes" (Strong's says the Hebrew word means "male temple prostitute").
> "sodomite" occurs 1 time in KJV. Same Hebrew word, NIV says "man...shrine prostitute".
> "effeminate" occurs 1 time in KJV. NIV apparently combines the two Greek words and says "men who have sex with men".
> 
> ...



Hi,

If one reads the epistle of Jude concerning the apostates, it clearly says that Sodom's damming sin was sexual immorality, specifically going after "strange flesh", which is considered to be the sin of practicing homosexuality. They are said to be an example of what happens with this sin as they are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. They were also guilty of other sins, such as those mentioned in Ezekiel. 

AV
FC of Scotland, Toronto


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 16, 2013)

Hi Logan. No, the last thing I said was "sorry if I did take things off track, I will leave it at that". Stating I was not going to say anything else, with an apology.


----------

