Gary Zimmerli wrote about why he won’t be changing to the NLT.
I would like to write a little bit of an extended comment as a post of my own here. I agree with Gary and am just going to add some quotes from a commentary.
Please read his post but if you’re pressed for time I’d like to reproduce part of it here:
——
Well, I guess I like the NLT well enough. It’s certainly easy to read. But I want to let you all know that there’s one thing about it that gives me pause. Take a look at Romans 6:1-4 in the NLT:
1 Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? 2 Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3 Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? 4 For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives. (emphasis mine)
Notice those bolded words. They may not bother a Baptist or Church of Christ member, but they bother me as a Methodist, and they should bother us all who are interested that the Bible be translated accurately. And I think this is one place where the NLT translators missed the mark.
Let’s take a look at the same passage in a more literal translation. I’m using the NASB for comparison, but this is true of all the more literal translations including the TNIV:
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (emphasis mine)
Do you see the difference? The point of this passage isn’t water baptism at all.
——
At first I didn’t see the problem because I just assumed that the NLT translators were using different wording to say the same thing.
When I looked at the note in the NLT Study Bible note I saw that I was wrong:
Baptism is the rite of initiation into the Christian faith (see “Baptism” at Acts 2:38, 41). It sometimes symbolizes the entire conversion experience, so Paul refers to baptism as the means through which believers are joined to Christ in his death and resurrection (see also 6:4). However, baptism has no value apart from faith.
The link to “Baptism” goes to a page talking about the ritual of baptism.
In his post on The NLT and the Language of Atonement, Rick Mansfield mentions that the translators of Romans for the NLT are Gerald Borchert, Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner.
I have a commentary on Romans by Thomas Schreiner. I think part of the reason I assumed the NLT’s rendering of baptism couldn’t be water baptism is because I read the whole commentary less than two years ago and must have had it in the back of my mind that he believes this isn’t referring to sacramental baptism but baptism at conversion. (I realize that some believe they are one in the same.)
In looking up his commentary on this, he even quotes Douglas Moo, his fellow translator.
The reference to baptism has been understood sacramentally, meaning that baptism itself communicates the power to overcome sin. Verse 3 links dying with Christ and baptism, while burial with Christ is said to occur ‘through baptism’ in verse 4. A sacramental understanding is flawed because it emphasizes baptism rather than the historic and definitive death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Moo 1991: 380-81). Paul’s main concern in this text is not baptism; it is never mentioned again after verse 4. What animates the discussion is the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection for believers. But does not Paul say that Christ’s death becomes effective for believers διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος? The issue here is how strictly one should interpret the prepositional phrase. I would suggest that later theological formulations have led many to read the phrase in a sacramental fashion. Paul’s intention in introducing baptism is not to emphasize ‘how we were buried with Christ, but to demonstrate that we were buried with Christ’ (Moo 1991: 381).
I don’t want to go on too long.
So according to Schreiner we may be putting too much emphasis on baptism, but it still begs the question as to why the NLT is worded in that way including what the study note says unless I’m understanding this all wrong.
That’s about all I have to contribute. Discuss amongst yourselves if you’d like.
I’d love to hear what Rick Mansfield’s take on this is and even more, the NLT people but I don’t want to impose on them. It may shed some light on understanding how various people understand this passage.
Here is what a couple of dead people have to say.
John Calvin:
That the mode of baptism,immersion, is intimated by ‘buried,’ has been thought by most, by [Chrysostom], [Augustine], [Hammond], [Pareus], [Mede], [Grotius], [Doddridge], [Chalmers], and others; while some, such as [Scott], [Stuart], and [Hodge], do not consider this as necessarily intended, the word ‘buried’ having been adopted to express more fully what is meant by being ‘dead,’ and there being another word, ‘planted,’ used to convey the same idea, which cannot be applied to the rite of baptism.
‘Buried with him,’ means buried like him, or in like manner; and so ‘crucified with him,’ in Rom 6:6, is the same: συν prefixed to verbs, has clearly this meaning. See Rom 8:17; Col 3:1; 2 Tim 2:11. ‘Into death’ is not to be connected with ‘planted,’ but with ‘baptism,’ it was ‘a baptism into death,’ that is, which represented death, even death unto sin.
Adam Clarke:
I say it is probable that the apostle alludes to this mode of immersion; but it is not absolutely certain that he does so, as some do imagine; for, in the next verse, our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is also denoted by our being planted, or rather, grafted together in the likeness of his death; and Noah’s ark floating upon the water, and sprinkled by the rain from heaven, is a figure corresponding to baptism, 1 Peter 3:20, 1 Peter 3:21; but neither of these gives us the same idea of the outward form as burying. We must be careful, therefore, not to lay too much stress on such circumstances.
First, and most importantly, I don’t know why Gary has to pick on Baptists; you don’t see me picking on Methodists
Second, I regret that Gary closed his comments. From my perspective, the discussion had not yet gotten out of hand. I was waiting to weigh in myself, curious to see where the conversation would go. I wasn’t sure that I would weigh in at all, but now Jeff has gone and called me by name!
Well, let me start by saying that I do believe water baptism is in reference here (key word being reference); however, Schriener is certainly right when he suggests that baptism is not the focus here, but rather that we have beenunited with Christ.
Really, v. 5 holds the key to this, and it’s a shame Gary didn’t quote one more verse.
“Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was” (v. 5, NLT)
The NLT is especially good in v. 5 because εἰ is translated as an assumed condition “since” rather than with “if” (See Louw & Nida: “a marker of cause or reason on the basis that an actual case is regarded formally as a supposition — ‘since, because.’”
I’ve noticed since living in Kentucky, many of the churches here recite some form of Romans 6:4 during baptism ceremonies (this was not done at the church I attended in Louisiana where I grew up). I don’t know if this is where the disconnect comes for Gary or not (he’ll have to answer) since he is Methodist, and often Methodists don’t fully immerse. But I believe that many associate v. 4 with baptism ceremonies because of the immersion (death) and coming up from the baptismal waters (resurrection).
And it’s hard to deny that historically, and in the original first century context, baptism implied full immersion (going under the water was the norm). The Didache introduced the idea of pouring water over a convert if “living water” (i.e. running water) was not available. Keep in mind that the English word “baptize” was a transliteration of the word βαπτίζω, coined by translators in the Middle Ages so as to avoid debate. Speaking of which, I hope not to start a method-of-baptism debate (or especially a Baptist vs. Methodist debate!), but this is crucial to my point, and to what I believe the passage is saying.
Gary takes issue with the phrase “joined with Christ in baptism” in the NLT v. 3, but the next clause is key: “we joined him in his death.” I’m guessing that the challenge faced by the NLT translators was what to do with “ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,” traditionally rendered “baptized into Christ Jesus.” My hunch is that if you asked the average person–even the average person in church–”What does ‘baptized into Christ Jesus’ mean?” you would come back with blank looks.
Baptism unites us to Christ (v. 5) because we have been buried (immersion) with him symbolically, and we are raised (rising from the immersion) to “walk in newness of life” or as the NLT better renders the meaning, “live new lives.” This does not mean baptism is salvific, and I don’t believe at all that this is the what NLT translators were trying to suggest. If I could use a word other than unitedor even joined (the NLT uses both of these between vv. 3 & 5), I might tryidentified, but that’s not a strong enough word because many Christians think they are identified with Christ simply by putting a fish on the back of their cars.
Thus, even Gary’s other objectionable phrase–”we died and were buried with Christ by baptism” (v. 4)”–is simply an attempt to put “συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον” (”Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death” [NASB]) into some kind of sense of meaning in contemporary speech. I might also point out here that the ESV, like the NLT, also translates “διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος” as “by baptism.” This is not really that radical of a translational decision–especially to have the NLT and ESV in agreement!
Perhaps if anything, those of us used to more traditional readings pause in a passage like this. What was intended to be “truth made clear” confuses us because we aren’t used to thinking in such clear terms.
Again, baptism is not the point, and baptism is not being presented as a means to salvation. Rather, baptism is being used here as an analogy or a metaphor that we have been joined/united/identified with Christ which IS the main point. Baptism paints this picture of dying (to the old self) and rising to “live new lives.” That’s what the passage means and the NLT presents that same idea, just not in the manner that some of us are used to hearing it.
One more point… I just looked at the NLT Study Bible notes for this passage that Jeff referred to. I wondered if perhaps the notes didn’t add to the confusion if they emphasized baptism too strongly. Well, I don’t believe they do. The note for v. 3 discusses baptism, but the note 4 focuses on union with Christ.
Then, since everyone likes to compare the NLT Study Bible notes with the ESV Study Bible notes, I decided to look there, too (I don’t have a physical copy of the ESVSB because Crossway chose not to send me a review copy like Tyndale did with the NLTSB, but I do have the notes in Accordance).
Note the ESVSB’s notes on vv. 3-4:
6:3 Christians died to sin when they were baptized into Christ. Paul is not arguing that baptism magically destroys the power of sin. Baptism is an outward, physical symbol of the inward, spiritual conversion of Christians.
6:4 In the early church, baptism was probably by immersion, at least as a general rule, though Christians dispute whether such a practice must always be followed literally today. Therefore, baptism pictures a person being buried with Christ (submersion under water) and being raised to new life with Christ (emergence from water). This symbolizes the person’s union with, and incorporation into, Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit. Hence, they now have the power to live in newness of life.
I think that’s what I said (esp. the note on v . 4), but I’m just more verbose evidently!
Thank you very much for taking the time Gary. That was very instructive.
I was going to look at the ESVSB notes but forgot.
Jeff
Gary? Where’s Gary?
Here I am, Rick. Just lurking here in the shadows!
As for closing the comments, Rick, I did that because I didn’t feel the discussion was going in the direction I wanted it. I didn’t want it to be a discussion of baptism and salvation, just a discussion of why I wasn’t switching over to the NLT as my main Bible. I would have preferred that other discussion to take place on another post about baptism and salvation.You know, my blog, my control.Busy now, will have to address the rest in a later comment.
Gary called me Stan and now I called Rick Gary. Sorry about that.
Jeff
Sorry Stan, er, Rick, er, Jeff! I’m just old.Not long ago I called our daughter Kiwi, which is the name of our dog!
Gary, I was glad you closed the comments. That knucklehead was really annoying.
Yes, he wanted to make the discussion about that, not me.
Anyway, back to Rick. I don’t mean to pick on Baptists; some of my dearest and closest friends are Baptists!
In reading and re-reading your comments, Rick, it becomes clearer that we are saying something that is very close to the same, it’s just harder to understand that.As you said in your first comment above, “Baptism unites us to Christ (v. 5) because we have been buried (immersion) with him symbolically, and we are raised (rising from the immersion) to “walk in newness of life” or as the NLT better renders the meaning, “live new lives.””I would say that Baptism symbolizes our uniting with Christ. I think that’s what you mean, even though you didn’t exactly say it that way. I think the whole physical aspect of baptism is symbolic of the spiritual reality. And yes, this may all come out of my Methodist upbringing. Maybe I don’t speak Baptist very well! 
Yes, at its core, it’s symbolic. But I don’t feel that I always have to say that. For one, I was paraphrasing v. 5 which doesn’t use the words symbol or symbolic. And second, I think that often in the church experiences I’ve been a part of, when the symbolic nature is emphasized–whether that’s the baptism or communion–many start to discount them or take them less seriously. When we emphasize that symbolic aspect, I’ve seen it cut short the very real communion with God and especially with fellow believers.
Rick, masterful!