Common English Bible & 2 Cor 5:17 - A Question

I was just sent a free copy of a new translation: The Common English Bible. I was looking up different verses just to compare with other versions I am familiar with and came across 2 Corinthians 5:17. What I am confused about is the phrase: "that person is part of the new creation". Most other versions read something like that person is a "new creation" or new creature". To me it seems like the addition of the phrase "part of" in the Common English Bible completely changes the meaning of the text. Does anyone have any insight on this? The entire verse is below.

2 Corinthians 5:17

"So then, if anyone is in Christ, that person is part of the new creation. The old things have gone away, and look, new things have arrived!"

Thanks,

Ron

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Doing a passage guide on the passage implies that the CEB translation is within bounds of the original text:

§ 5:17 in Christ. Union with Christ summarizes our experience of redemption. Believers are elected (Eph. 1:4, 11), justified (Rom. 8:1), sanctified (1 Cor. 1:2), and glorified (3:18) “in Christ.” Here Paul focuses on the momentous significance of the believer’s union with the Savior. Because Christ is the “last Adam,” the One in whom humanity is recreated (1 Cor. 15:45; Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:10) and who inaugurates the new age of messianic blessing (Gal. 1:4; cf. Matt. 11:2–6), the believer’s spiritual union with Christ is nothing less than participation in the “new creation.” Translating “there is a new creation” instead of “he is a new creation” draws this conclusion more clearly, but the thought is there either way.

Luder G. Whitlock, R. C. Sproul, Bruce K. Waltke and Moisš Silva, Reformation Study Bible, the : Bringing the Light of the Reformation to Scripture : New King James Version, 2 Co 5:17 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).

Rosie Perera

Actually, in the Greek, there is no "he is" or "that person is" -- it's just:

Supplying the words to make it flow smoothly in English requires a certain amount of interpretation. The verb "to be" ("is") is a pretty obvious necessary addition. The modern translations that try to avoid "he" language when all people are meant to be included are warranted in writing "there is a new creation" (even though that rubbed me the wrong way when I first saw it), and the CEB's way of rendering it seems valid as well since the "new creation" goes beyond any individual.

I remember my pastor preaching on that passage once years ago, and he pointed out the gap in the Greek where we'd expect there to be some filler words in English. It's as if "new creation" just springs on you like a surprise. Read it in English that way "Therefore, if anyone (is) in Christ....NEW CREATION!!!" It's kind of exciting that way. It doesn't matter that it's vague who or what the new creation is referring to. Just the sense of wow comes across when you think of it with the underlying Greek sentence structure in mind. Of course it's not standard English so we have to come up with another way of making it flow for actual reading, but thinking about these things and how they are translated can be a fruitful exercise at times. Good for you in noticing the discrepancy! That's usually an indicator of something about the underlying original language which is worth digging deeper into.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/168291#Comment_168291

Thanks for the input!

SteveF

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/168291#Comment_168291

"Therefore, if anyone (is) in Christ....NEW CREATION!!!"

Nicely done,

Thanks for that, Rosie.

Loren Johns

Yes. The Greek has literally, "If anyone is in Christ, a new creation." Many translations assume that "new creation" refers to the person; others argue that it is larger than the person: everything has become new.

Quoting on Andrew D. Rowell on John Howard Yoder:

"Yoder makes his strongest argument here on this subject in Body Politics. Yoder also argues earlier about the importance of the Jew-Gentile reconciliation for the apostle Paul in the following two works. Yoder, “The Apostle‟s Apology Revisited,” in The New Way of Jesus, 115-134. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 212-227. In this [sic] two passages, he spends significant time interpreting 2 Corinthians 5:17. He argues the best reading does not describe something inward. “So what Paul says is not centered on the changes that take place within the constitution of the individual person, but on the changed way in which the believer is to look at the world, and especially on overcoming the „carnal standards‟ in which he used to perceive men in pigeonholes and categories and classes. Now he is able to perceive them in the light of their being in the place of Christ.” Yoder, “The Apostle‟s Apology Revisited,” in The New Way of Jesus, 131. The context of 2 Corinthians 5 supports Yoder's reading which the TNIV has adopted (though other recent translations —HCSB, ESV, NLT—have not). “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view . . . Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come” (2 Cor 5:16-17 TNIV). The importance of the Jew-Gentile issue is more easily made from Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, and Acts than from 2 Corinthians. Still, Yoder makes a good case that conversion is always more than an internal feeling. The reference to “new creation” in Galatians 6:15 strengthens his case further that this conversation language of “new creation” connoted overcoming social barriers. “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation” (Gal 6:15 TNIV).

"The Ecclesiology of John Howard Yoder: Scripture, Five Practices of the Christian Community, and Mission," by Andrew D. Rowell, Aug. 1, 2008, Duke Divinity School, p. 39, n. 103.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/189483#Comment_189483

Thank you all for this discussion, it was interesting..

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190001#Comment_190001

The new NIV changes the translation of this verse for some of the reasons mentioned above. The new NIV site gives an explanation which is interesting, though I confess I can't find it now.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190001#Comment_190001

Also, see the NIV 2011 Translators' Notes (page 9) on this verse:

http://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf

2 Corinthians 5:17

1984: ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

Updated NIV: ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”

A footnote gives as an alternative, ‟Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

This time it is the Greek that is elliptical, reading simply ‟new creation.” Is it the person in Christ who is the new creation? Yes, of course. But if that’s all Paul meant, there are other more natural ways he could have said it. Given his overall theology that the coming of Christ and the new era he inaugurated began the period of the restoration of all things that would culminate in new heavens and new earth, it is likely that Paul is making a much more sweeping claim than just the salvation of the individual believer. A new universe is in the works!

Peter

Pat Flanakin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190004#Comment_190004

To the OP, a good review of a couple conservative, scholarly commentaries exegeting the passage should get you an answer rather easily.

What I do not see above is what folks think that "new creation" actually is. I can argue it is the creation of the human spirit where the Holy Spirit's temple resides. Our soul doesn't change, nor our physical body. In order to be a new creation, something has to fundamentally change in its foundational structure.

Another question is what classification "if" is in the verse. There are four conditional classifications of "if" in the Greek.

Just food for thought. Additionally, you would be well served to view in context the phrase as all language is communicated exactly based on context; ergo, double entendre.

Full disclosure: I am not a Greek scholar; however, I depend on a good pastor who prepares his English sermons based on the original languages. Would we take a French literature professor seriously if he could not read the literature in the original French?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/190173#Comment_190173

Our soul doesn't change, nor our physical body.

Not everyone accepts a tripartite division of spirit/soul/body. If you believe Scripture teaches that the spirit and soul are the same, then the soul does change.