Why do modern translations of the Bible differ from the Authorized Version?
This text is from an article written by David Gooding sometime during 1987–1990.
There is no need for me to say what a wonderful translation the AV is, or to attempt to describe the way God has used it to bring immeasurable blessing to countless millions throughout the English-speaking world.
There were, of course, several English translations of the Bible already in existence when the translators of the AV made their own translation. They did not ignore these earlier translations: they tell us on their title page, they 'diligently compared and revised' their own translation in the light of them.
But what is more important, they themselves went back to the Hebrew and Greek, 'the Original Tongues' as they call them; and in all cases where the earlier translations disagreed or were incorrect, they made their own translation in the light of the original languages of Scripture. Their motive was, as they declare in their preface, '... that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue'. In making this their aim, they set a noble example for all those who in later centuries should seek to emulate them and strive to translate the Scriptures with ever greater accuracy and precision.
Mistakes were made in the AV and more is now known about the original languages
When we examine the AV in the light of what we now know about the original languages, which in some respects is more than the AV translators could have known, we find that, as good as it generally is, there are some places where it is mistaken. Naturally, modern translations try to correct these mistakes, and this is the first reason why they sometimes differ from the AV. Let us take two examples.
1. At Luke 23:14–15, according to the AV, Pilate says of the Lord Jesus '... and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him'.
Note those last three words, 'done unto him'. They are a mistaken translation. The correct rendering of the Greek would be 'done by him'. Greek grammar puts the matter beyond doubt; but even a Greekless reader, who follows the flow of thought in Pilate's statement, can see that 'done by him' is the right translation and not 'done unto him'. Herod certainly did outrageous things to the Lord Jesus, and when we remember who the Lord Jesus was, Herod certainly deserved to die for his maltreatment of the Lord. But that was not what Pilate was thinking or talking about. He was concerned with the question whether Jesus, not Herod, had done anything worthy of death. The chief priests said he had. Pilate, however, could find no fault in him, and said so (see Luke 23:4). The priests, however, would not listen (Luke 23:5), so Pilate sent Christ to Herod to get his verdict. And in Luke 23:15 Pilate reports the verdict that Herod gave: 'nothing worthy of death has been done by him' (i.e. by Jesus). All modern translations (including J. N. Darby's) agree that the AV's translation is mistaken here.
How its translators came to make such a mistake in Greek grammar we shall never know; though we should remember that in the massive work of making a translation of the whole Bible it is easy to make mistakes, and modern translations also make mistakes.
2. But there are other mistakes in the AV which were caused by the fact that the information necessary for a correct translation was not available to the translators, or to anybody else, in the days when they were making their version.
In 1 Samuel 13:21, for instance, there occur the Hebrew letters pym. Now, for years, no one knew exactly what these letters meant in this context. The AV translators did their best and came up with a translation of the verse as follows: 'Yet they had a file for the mattocks'.
In comparatively recent times, however, as Professor Alan Millard has reminded us in a very interesting article (Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 6, 1986–8, 46), archaeologists have discovered a number of ancient weights inscribed in the early Hebrew script with the letters pym—just like years ago we used to see big brass weights in butchers' shops stamped with the letters '1 lb' or '2 lbs'. From the weight of these ancient Hebrew weights, it was easy to deduce that the letters pym inscribed on them meant 'two-thirds of a shekel'. In light of this new information, we can now see that 1 Samuel 13:21 means not 'they had a file for the mattocks' but 'and the charge was a pym for the ploughshares'. The previous verse tells us that the Israelites had to go to the Philistines to get their tools sharpened; verse 21 tells us that the price the Philistines charged for sharpening the tools was a pym, that is, two-thirds of a shekel. So this, or something like it, is what modern translations of this verse have, and that is why they differ here from the AV.
We should, then, be grateful to God for the work of the archaeologists and scholars which enables us to obtain ever more exact and precise renderings of his infallible word.
Dynamic equivalence is used where a literal translation is not possible or desirable
A second reason why modern translations differ from the AV may be explained as follows.
It often happens that a given language has words and phrases which are readily understood by speakers of that language, but which, if translated literally into another language, make no sense at all to the speakers of this second language. In France, for instance, they have a vegetable which they call pomme de terre. Literally translated into English, the name of this vegetable would be earth apple. Now, we in the UK have this vegetable and enjoy it. But if you wanted to buy some, it would be no use asking the greengrocer for four kilos of earth apples, because he might not know what you were talking about. Our word for this vegetable is not earth apple but potato. The correct and sensible way to translate the French word pomme de terre, then, is not to translate it literally, but instead to use the word which English speakers normally use.
The AV translators were, of course, aware of this principle of translation, and sometimes they followed it to great effect. Paul, for instance, repeatedly uses a little phrase which, if it were translated literally, would read 'May it not be'. But the AV translators rightly decided that this literal translation would not truly represent Paul's meaning; it would not convey anywhere near the same force as Paul's Greek expression conveys. So they abandoned all attempt at translating literally and, instead of saying 'May it not be', used the phrase 'God forbid' (e.g. Rom 6:2, 15; Gal 6:14). There is no word in the Greek for 'God' and none representing 'forbid'. Nonetheless, the AV's translation beautifully conveys the force of the Greek. One could, of course, think of other expressions in English that would convey the same force equally well, like 'perish the thought', for instance. Neither expression is a literal translation; deciding between the two, if one had to, would ultimately come down to a question of taste.
The AV translators, then, were aware of the principle that it is sometimes better not to translate literally, but to use what modern translators call a dynamic equivalent. In spite of that, there are places where they have needlessly employed a literal translation and so have made it more difficult for their readers to catch the meaning of the original.
At Matthew 9:15, for instance, the AV says, 'Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?' What, we may ask, are 'children of the bridechamber'? If a friend of yours came back from a wedding and told you that at the reception there were twenty-five children of the bridechamber present, what would you think they were saying?
When the Lord Jesus used the term, children of the bridechamber, it was in his language the everyday expression for guests of the bridegroom. But the fact is that in English we do not call wedding guests children of the bridechamber any more than we call potatoes earth apples. Why not, then, use the straightforward, natural English expression which everybody immediately understands, instead of a literal translation of an oriental expression which in English sounds peculiar and puzzles many readers? At least, that is what many modern translations do in such cases, and that is why they differ from the AV.
Words have dropped out of the language or changed their meaning
Yet another reason is that some of the words which the AV translators used have in the course of the centuries dropped out of the language altogether, so that today few people would know what they mean; or else they have completely changed their meaning so that nowadays they mean something completely different from what they did when the AV translators used them.
A frequently quoted example is the word prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. In the days when the AV translators used it, the word 'prevent' meant 'to go before': 'we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent [that is, shall not go before] them which are asleep'. But in modern English, prevent has completely lost its meaning of to go before, and now means only 'to stop someone doing something'. A modern reader of the AV, therefore, who does not know that prevent originally meant go before, and takes the word in its modern sense, is going to get a completely wrong idea of what this Scripture is saying. Why then should we perpetuate this kind of misunderstanding by retaining the word prevent instead of using the modern English words precede or go before?
Similarly, in Luke 22:31, 'Satan hath desired to have you' does not mean 'Satan has wished to have you', or 'longed to have you'. The AV translators were using the word desire in its older meaning 'ask for': 'Satan has asked for you'. If, therefore, a modern version renders the verse 'Satan has asked for you', it is certainly using different words from the AV. But in this case, it is not contradicting what the AV says: it is simply making clear to the modern reader what the AV originally meant.
Translating metaphors from one language to another is a problem
Another reason why modern versions differ from the AV lies in the problem of how best to translate metaphors from one language to another. Literally translated, Revelation 2:23 reads, '... I am he who searches the kidneys...'. We see at once that the term kidney is not being used in a literal sense. The Lord is not saying that he searches the organs in our bodies that filter out impurities from the blood stream. The term is being used metaphorically. But the question is, how should we translate it into English?
When the ancient Hebrews used the term 'kidneys' in this metaphorical sense, all Hebrew speaking people knew that they were referring to a person's inner thoughts and motives. But English speaking people do not use the word kidneys in this way. They are, of course, happy to use the word heart metaphorically. One will often hear someone say 'I put my heart into the work'; and no one supposes that the speaker is referring to the literal physical organ that circulates blood round the body. 'Heart' is being used metaphorically. But we don't use kidneys metaphorically.
What shall a translator do, then? The AV decided to keep the original metaphor, and translated the Greek word for word '... I am he which searcheth the reins...', the word reins being Old English, based on the Latin renes, for kidneys. But here we meet another difficulty. The word 'reins' in the sense of kidneys has completely dropped out of everyday modern English. A doctor may talk of renal failure, when they mean failure of the kidneys; but ordinary people, when they come across the word reins, will not know that it means kidneys. To complicate things further, there is another, completely different English word reins which means the leather straps with which you guide and control a horse. If a modern translator used the word 'reins' in Revelation 2:23, therefore, their readers would find it difficult to understand, if not confusing.
Suppose then the translator decides to abandon the Old English word and use the modern word instead. They will still not have solved the problem, because the phrase, '... I am he who searcheth the kidneys...', may well sound very odd, if not crude, and modern readers will still not necessarily know that kidneys refers to a person's inner thoughts and motivations. Modern translators, therefore, tend to abandon all attempts to keep the original metaphor. Instead, they ask what the original metaphor meant, and they translate that meaning into straightforward literal English. '... I am he who searches hearts...', says the NIV. The NEB agrees; while the RSV and the NASB put 'mind' and 'minds' respectively.
But now let us look at a case which is somewhat more complicated. 'Gird up the loins of your mind', says the AV of 1 Peter 1:13. Once more we can see that the phrase is being used as a metaphor and not literally. The metaphor is based on the habit that the ancient Israelites had of putting a strong belt round their middles and tucking their long flowing robes into it whenever they had some hard work to do, or a serious journey to take. So we read, for instance, that Elijah 'girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab...' (1 Kgs 18:46). When, therefore, Peter says, 'Gird up the loins of your mind', he means that we are to prepare our minds to do some hard thinking.
Older people, and especially older men who have been used to heavy work, have no difficulty at all in understanding the metaphor, 'gird up the loins of your mind'. In their youth, the word loins was still in current use, and when they went to do hard work, they saw to it that they wore a strong belt.
But nowadays 'loins' has virtually dropped out of modern English (except as a term for certain cuts of meat), and even people who wear belts would hardly speak of 'girding up their loins'.
So what shall translators do? They could perhaps try to use up-to-date words instead of old-fashioned ones. But 'put a belt round the middle of your mind' would not begin to convey the proper meaning, and would sound crude into the bargain.
The metaphorical expression which we tend to use in everyday situations for preparing ourselves to do some hard work is not 'gird up your loins', but 'take your jacket off and roll up your sleeves'. But that would hardly be suitable in our context. 'Roll up the sleeves of your mind' would border on slang and would sound irreverent. The NEB has chosen another metaphor therefore, with a similar meaning: 'You must therefore be mentally stripped for action', which manages to get the sense and to be dignified English. The RSV has decided to drop part of the metaphor and, leaving out the word 'loins', says simply 'gird up your minds'. The 1984 NIV, however, has decided to drop the metaphor altogether and to translate instead the meaning of the original into straightforward literal English: 'prepare your minds for action'. And we can now understand why they have done so. Many missionaries engaged in Bible translation and faced with the difficulty of translating metaphors from one language to another have frequently adopted the same method. Who could fault them?
But in 1 Peter 1:13, there is an added complication. The phrase 'gird up the loins of your mind' is not only a metaphor. It contains an allusion to the Old Testament, as we can see from a glance at its context in the rest of the chapter. Peter says in 1 Peter 1:18–19 '... ye know that ye were ... redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ'. But not content with that, he adds 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot'. He wants us to draw a parallel between our being redeemed with the blood of Christ and Israel's being redeemed by the blood of the Passover lamb. Thinking of the Passover lamb and Israel's redemption will help us to grasp the significance of our redemption through Christ.
When Israel was redeemed, they were promised an inheritance flowing with milk and honey. And with a phrase carefully worded to remind us of that fact, Peter points out that we too have an inheritance ahead, 'incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away' (1 Peter 1:4).
To get from Egypt to their inheritance, however, the Israelites had to be prepared to journey; and therefore all who ate the Passover lamb had to eat of it, 'with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand' (Exo 12:11), ready to start out on the journey at any moment. To eat the Passover and refuse to journey would be a contradiction in terms.
It is to this important implication of redemption that Peter is alluding when he exhorts us who have been redeemed and have an inheritance to go to, to 'gird up the loins of our mind' and work out logically what our hope involves. It would be seriously inconsistent if, claiming to be redeemed and to have an inheritance ahead, we were not prepared to set out on the pilgrim's path of spiritual progress.
What then shall the translator do? If he keeps the metaphor 'gird up the loins of your mind', his modern readers may find the translation difficult. But if he gets rid of the metaphor and puts simply 'Prepare your minds for action', his readers will miss Peter's deliberate allusion to Exodus 12:11, and will be the poorer for it. In that case, the best thing to do would be to keep the metaphor, preferably in the text, or if not, at least in an explanatory footnote.
A word can have different meanings in different contexts
Yet another reason why modern translations differ from the AV is as follows.
In Hebrew and Greek, as in many other languages, one and the same word can have different meanings according to the different contexts in which it is used. It is so in English. Take the word chair, for example. In many contexts, it simply means a piece of furniture designed in a certain way for sitting on. 'She sat down on a chair' is immediately understandable in that sense.
But suppose we read that at a certain meeting the chair was taken by Mr Jones. The word 'chair' here obviously means something more than simply a piece of furniture for sitting on. The fact that it is referred to as the chair does not imply that there was only one chair to sit on at this meeting; nor again does the phrase that 'he took the chair' mean that Mr Jones took away the only chair there was. No, in this sentence the word chair refers to 'the chair'—probably more elegant than the other chairs, but possibly not—on which the person who controlled the meeting sat. The phrase 'took the chair' means that Mr Jones controlled the meeting, or, as we say, he 'chaired' the meeting. To 'address the chair' would mean to direct one's remarks to the chairperson.
On the other hand, if we are told that Professor So-and-so holds the Chair of Anatomy in such-and-such a university, that does not mean that they are the chairperson at meetings on the subject of anatomy. 'Chair' in contexts of this kind originally referred to the chair on which the highest ranking teacher of a subject sat to deliver their lectures. But nowadays there is no such special piece of furniture, and most lecturers stand anyway. To 'hold the Chair of Anatomy' is now a metaphorical way of saying that someone holds the position of highest ranking teacher of anatomy.
Suppose, however, we read that at some time in the past in the USA a man was sent to the chair. We shall not imagine that it means that he was sent to a meeting to be its chairperson, or that he was appointed to a professorship in a university. The context will tell us that it means that the unfortunate man was executed by being strapped into an electric chair and the current switched on.
The fact that the word 'chair' means different things in different contexts does not worry an English speaker; but a foreigner who tried to translate English into his native language would have to take great care to select the proper meaning on each occasion. And that is the situation with a translator, and even more with an expositor, of the Bible.
Take, for an example, the term flesh. In Hebrew and in biblical Greek it can have many different meanings. It can, for instance, be used of one of the substances of which our bodies are made, along with other substances like bone and blood. So in resurrection the Lord invited his disciples to 'handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have' (Luke 24:39). In this case, we notice that 'flesh' is only one part of the body, distinguishable from bones.
But in other contexts, the term flesh is used by itself, to denote a human being. For example, 'except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved' (Matt 24:22), does not mean no 'flesh', as distinct from 'bones', but, 'no human beings should be saved', or as the NIV puts it, 'no-one would survive'.
Again, when John 1:14 says 'And the Word was made flesh' it certainly does not mean flesh as distinct from bones. It means that the Word became fully human without ceasing to be God.
But now consider another context. Speaking of the Lord, Hebrews 5:7 says '... in the days of his flesh ... he ... offered up prayers and supplications...'. What does the phrase 'in the days of his flesh' mean? It cannot mean 'in the days when he was human', for he is human still. It cannot even mean 'in the days when he had a body of flesh', because in resurrection he still has a body of flesh, as we saw above (see Luke 24:39). It is, as we can see from the context, referring to the time when he lived here on earth, as distinct from the present when he is now in heaven.
So what is a translator to do? Shall he keep the term 'flesh' and risk his readers failing to see the special sense in which it is being used here? That is the course the AV has followed. Or shall he try to find some other form of words that will get across the special sense that flesh carries in this context? That is what the NIV has attempted to do, with its 'During the days of Jesus' life on earth'. Whatever we may think of the comparative merits of the two translations, we can at least see the reason behind the differences between them.
It is of course well known that the term, flesh, in some places in the New Testament, carries a 'bad' meaning; whereas in other places in the New Testament, such as those discussed above, it has a 'good' or at least a neutral meaning. The Greek word (sarx) is the same whether the meaning is good or bad. Once more, the question arises: shall a translator use the same English word flesh on each occasion, and let the readers decide for themselves in each context whether the good or the bad meaning is intended? After all, that is what the first readers of the Greek New Testament had to do. Or shall the translator use different translations according to whether flesh carries a good or bad meaning?
The latter course is the one followed by many modern translations. In principle, it is unobjectionable; but in practice it has sometimes led to seriously incorrect translations. At Romans 8:13, the GNT says 'If you live according to your human nature, you are going to die'. But that is a very misleading translation. Human nature is not in and of itself bad. Our Lord himself possesses human nature and he ever was, and is, sinlessly perfect. And though we are fallen creatures, when we eat, drink, sleep, marry, are we not living according to our human nature? Surely that is not in itself sinful? If one is going to use a paraphrase, perhaps the 1984 NIV's rendering is preferable: 'For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die'; though maybe not all would be happy with the phrase 'sinful nature'. Perhaps the best thing after all would be simply to use the word flesh and let the commentators tell us what it means in this verse.
But let us end this section with a practical exercise. Suppose we were missionaries and were engaged in translating the Bible into a language where the word for flesh could only carry the good meaning, that is, the material the human body is made of. Suppose therefore that when the word flesh carried a bad meaning we had to use another, altogether different word in the local language, because if we didn't, the natives would misunderstand completely what was meant. When we got to the verse '... that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men...' (1 Peter 4:2), how ought we to translate the word flesh? Should we use the word that carried the good meaning? Or the one that carried the bad meaning?
It can be hard to understand what a verse is saying
Another reason why different versions disagree among themselves is this. It is difficult, as I am sure all would agree, to translate a verse accurately and convey its meaning clearly, if one does not first understand oneself what the verse is saying.
In the vast majority of cases, it is easy enough to see what a verse means: all translators agree on the meaning, and though they may use different words to express that meaning, the meaning itself remains the same in all the different versions. But there are some verses where it is difficult at first sight to decide exactly what they mean, and serious believers, who believe with all their hearts that the verse in question is part of God's inspired word, nonetheless come to different conclusions as to what the verse means. And so it is sometimes with translators. It is not that they are setting out to pervert God's word. They are doing their best to understand it; but because they understand a verse in different ways, they naturally come up with different translations.
A good example is 2 Corinthians 1:17–18. In the AV it reads: '... or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.' The difficulty lies in verse 17. What does it mean? From the context we learn that some while ago Paul had promised a visit to Corinth. But then unforeseen circumstances arose and he did not go to Corinth. The Corinthian believers were therefore accusing him of having broken his promise and of not being a man of his word; and in this paragraph he is explaining his motives for having changed his plans, and is defending himself against their accusation.
Much of what he says is completely clear, and all translations agree on its meaning. At the beginning of 2 Corinthians 1:17, for instance, he says, 'When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness?' (AV). He means, 'When I made and announced my original plans, did I make them irresponsibly, without due seriousness, and without any firm intention of carrying them out?' And the answer he implies is, no! All translations agree, though they use slightly different words. Darby's translation says, 'Having therefore this purpose, did I then use lightness?' The 1984 NIV says 'When I planned this, did I do it lightly?' The NEB says, 'That was my intention; did I lightly change my mind?'
Similarly, all agree what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 1:18: 'Our word toward you was not yea and nay'. He means that the gospel he preached to them was not, and is not, an ambiguous message that could just as easily be taken to mean yes as to mean no. Some politicians are very good at that kind of language. Ask them a direct question, and they will manage to answer both yes and no at the same time, so that in the end you don't know which they mean; and whatever happens in the end, they can turn around and say that that is what they meant. But the gospel is not a yes and no message like that. If it says yes, it means yes. If it says no, it means no. Mr Darby translates it, 'our word to you is not yea and nay'. The NIV says similarly, 'our message to you is not "Yes" and "No"'.
But now comes the difficulty! What does the second half of 2 Corinthians 1:17 mean? It is clear, of course, that to 'purpose according to the flesh' is a bad thing; and Paul denies that he has ever done it, or ever does it. And obviously, again, the words at the end of the verse are intended to describe what 'purpose according to the flesh' amounts to. But at this point, translators and commentators disagree over what these words at the end of the verse mean. They have understood them in basically two different ways:
'Purposing, or planning, according to the flesh' means to behave like the abovementioned politician. To make a plan, or to couch a promise in such ambiguous words that it actually says 'yes' and 'no' at the same time; only it is all wrapped up in such deliberately vague language, that some people think it says yes, and others think it means no. Nobody is sure what it really means and, whatever happens in the end, the man who made the promise is able to get himself off the hook. That is what the NIV thinks it means; and so, using a paraphrase, it says, 'Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say "Yes, yes" and "No, no"?'.
But other translators understand the verse to be saying the very opposite. According to them, 'planning according to the flesh' means to make plans that are not subject to the will of the Lord; to make them according to one's own human ideas and intentions so as to be able to give an absolutely cast-iron promise, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no', as the case may be, and carry out the promise without any regard to the fact that the Holy Spirit might indicate, through changed circumstances, that it was not his will for the plans to be carried out in the way originally intended. On this understanding, 'planning according to the flesh' does not mean saying 'yes' and 'no' in the same breath. It means planning things regardless of the Spirit's leading, so as to be able to give a cast-iron 'Yes, yes', or, as the case may be, a cast-iron 'No, no'. Paul could have planned things that way; and if he had, he would have gone to Corinth as he originally intended. But to him, that would have been to plan according to the flesh, and he did not plan that way. His plans were always made subject to the Lord's will, and therefore could be changed if the Lord so indicated. This, at any rate, is how the translators of the NEB understood the verse. And so they render it very differently from the NIV: 'Or do I, when I frame my plans, frame them as a worldly man might, so that it should rest with me to say "yes" and "yes", or "no" and "no"?'.
Well, which interpretation, which translation, is right? In my opinion, the answer is the second one. The evidence for it is this. Literally translated, 2 Corinthians 1:17 is not saying the same as 2 Corinthians 1:18. 2 Corinthians 1:18, literally translated, says, 'Our message to you is not yes-and-no'. But 2 Corinthians 1:17 is different. It does not say '... that with me there should be yes-and-no'. What it says is '... that with me there should be "the yes and yes" and "the no and no".' That is, 'that with me there should be an emphatic yes, and an emphatic no'; or 'that with me there might be the yes of promise and the yes of fulfilment', regardless of how God might intervene to change my original plans.
But the question is a difficult one. What interpretation would you follow, if you were a missionary on the field and had to translate the verse into a foreign language? At least it shows how much we need to pray for all such translators.
Applying Textual Criticism when different manuscripts are available
Let us now consider Revelation 22:14, first in the AV and then in the NIV. It will provide an example of another cause of difference between the AV and modern translations.
AV: 'Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.'
NIV: 'Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.'
It is at once obvious that the difference between the AV and the NIV here is extremely important. Revelation 22:14 is dealing with the fundamental question of the believer's right to enter the eternal city. As verse 15 points out, the alternative to entering the eternal city is nothing less than to be left outside, among the 'dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie' (AV). In other words, Revelation 22:14 is talking about our eternal salvation and raises this question: on what does our eternal salvation depend? On what is our right to enter heaven and enjoy eternal life based?
According to the AV here, it depends on doing his (i.e. God's) commandments. According to the NIV it depends on washing our robes (i.e. in the blood of the Lamb). The AV makes it depend on our works; the NIV makes it depend on the blood of the Lamb. The difference is of immense importance, and presently we must decide which of the two versions is correct, the AV or the NIV.
But before we do that, let us first ask: how has it come about that the AV and the NIV should differ so irreconcilably on such an important matter? The answer is that it is not simply a matter of translation; in other words, it is not that one version has translated the original Greek correctly and the other incorrectly. The translators of the AV have given us a perfectly correct translation of the Greek manuscripts that lay before them; similarly, the translators of the NIV have correctly translated the Greek manuscripts on which their version is based. The difference has arisen because, in this verse, the Greek manuscripts themselves disagree. The AV translators followed manuscripts that contained the Greek equivalent of 'do his commandments'; the NIV translators have followed a different set of manuscripts that contains the Greek equivalent of 'wash their robes'.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts containing the whole or part of the New Testament; and when we compare them, we find that there are thousands of differences between them. Most of them are small differences; some, like the one we are considering, are larger. They have arisen as a result of the fact that, for fourteen centuries, every single copy of the New Testament had to be copied out individually by hand, as the word 'manuscript' (from the Latin = 'written by hand') reminds us. Some people would have made their copies carelessly, with the result that many mistakes would have entered into what they wrote. But even those who wrote their copies with great care would inevitably have made a few mistakes inadvertently; for it is virtually impossible to copy out a long document without making any mistakes. If you doubt that, try making your own handwritten copy of the New Testament and see how far you get without making a mistake. Moreover, sometimes, when people did not understand what they found in the New Testament, they changed it to what they felt made better sense.
But at this point a very important fact emerges: while all manuscripts contain some mistakes, they do not all have their mistakes in the same places. In any one verse, some manuscripts may well have a mistake, or even a deliberate alteration; but other manuscripts will have an accurate copy of the original. And, to put things at their simplest, it is by comparing every word in every verse in the numerous manuscripts of the New Testament that we can decide in each verse which manuscripts best represent what the authors of the New Testament originally wrote.
This, of course, is what the translators of the AV had to do; and this is what all serious modern translators have to do. The difference is that many more Greek manuscripts, and much older Greek manuscripts, are available to us today than were available to the AV translators. But before any translator can translate a verse of the Greek New Testament into English, they must first decide which Greek manuscripts they are going to follow in that verse. Where the manuscripts disagree, they cannot follow them all: they must choose between them.
So now we come back to the particular example that we have chosen to study. In Revelation 22:14, some Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of 'do his commandments'; other Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of 'wash their robes'. Now, the apostle John did not write both 'do his commandments' and 'wash their robes'. One of these phrases is what he wrote; the other is an alteration introduced by some later scribe. But which is which? And how shall we decide?
Fortunately, in this case, decision is easy. First, we may notice that, when John talks of our obeying the Lord's commandments, he never uses the phrase, 'do his commandments', but always 'keep his commandments' (see John 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1 John 2:3–4; 3:22, 24; 5:2–3; Rev 12:17; 14:12 AV). If, then, John wanted to say in Revelation 22:14 that entry into heaven depends on our obedience to the commandments, he would have said, 'Blessed are those who keep his commandments'. The phrase, 'do his commandments' comes then not from John's pen, but from that of some later scribe.
But for another reason we can be utterly certain that John never intended to say that entry into heaven depends on our keeping the commandments. Why? Because in the first place, elsewhere in the Revelation he tells us quite clearly what the basis of salvation and acceptance before God is: '... they ... have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God' (Rev 7:14–15; see also Rev 5:9). He would not have contradicted in Revelation 22:14 what he said in Revelation 7:14-15 and Revelation 5:9.
And then, of course, we can not only compare what John wrote in Revelation 22:14 with what John wrote elsewhere; we can compare Revelation 22:14 with what the New Testament consistently teaches everywhere. In God's wisdom, the great fundamental doctrines of Scripture never depend on one single isolated verse. They are always set forth in many different books, and in many different ways; but the doctrine remains consistent all the way through. Therefore, in Revelation 22:14, those manuscripts are right that read, 'Blessed are they who wash their robes [that is, in the blood of the Lamb]', for the simple reason that this is what the New Testament consistently teaches: we are 'justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood ... we conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law' (Rom 3:24–25, 28). And what is more, if we take the AV as a whole, it teaches this as clearly as any other translation. It is simply that in Revelation 22:14 it has unfortunately based its translation on the wrong manuscripts.
And finally, in cases like this we can always consult the judgment of godly scholars. J. N. Darby, for instance, has no doubt about the matter. His translation reads: 'Blessed are they that wash their robes'. And with him the vast majority of modern scholars would agree.
Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ and loves the Saviour will keep his commandments (John 14:15). But that is the result of being saved, not the condition for receiving salvation. Our right to the tree of life and to entrance into the eternal city depend, thank God, solely on the blood of Christ.
