2 Peter 1:1
From four translations:
SIMON PETER, a servant and legate of Jesus the Messiah, to those who have obtained equally precious faith with us, through the righteousness of Our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus the Messiah. — Murdock’s Syriac Translation.
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ. — American Standard Version.
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. — King James Version.
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. — Revised Standard Version.
However, if we lay aside the Syriac, and assume that Jesus is being called “THEOS” in this verse, this would not mean that Jesus is Jehovah, since Jesus is not the "one God" who is the source of all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) The default reasoning should be that if the Greek word THEOS is applied to anyone other than the "one God" of 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is not in the sense of GOD who is the Supreme Being, the source of all, but rather in harmony with the Hebraic usage of forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated EL, it is being used in the sense of might or strength in a sense other than being the MIGHTY ONE INNATE, the source of all might, the Supreme Being. Jehovah is the God and Father of Jesus. (Micah 5:2; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 1 Peter 1:3) The Father of Jesus is the only true God -- the only true Supreme Being -- who sent Jesus. (John 17:1,3; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1) Jesus is not that only true God who sent him.
==========
*See our study on the Hebraic usages of words for “God”:
Furthermore, the above translations (as well the translations presented later) show that there is not a general agreement as to how the verse should be translated, even from the Textus Receptus (Received Text). Some translations make a total separation between “God” and “our Savior”, while others make it appear that Jesus is being called “our God and Savior”. Concerning this Albert Barnes states:
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ - Margin, “our God and Saviour.” The Greek will undoubtedly bear the construction given in the margin; and if this be the true rendering, it furnishes an argument for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Middleton, Slade, Valpy, Bloomfield, and others, contend that this is the true and proper rendering. It is doubted, however, by Wetstein, Grotius, and others. Erasmus supposes that it may be taken in either sense. The construction, though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour. It is easier to prove the doctrine from other texts that are plain, than to show that this must be the meaning here.
Brother Barnes, believing in the trinity doctrine, would desire the marginal reading of the King James Version to be correct, but he does show that many scholars disagree with this, and that Erasmus supposed that it could be rendered either way. Brother Barnes believes that 1 Peter 1:1 is proof of Jesus' divinity. This method is often used with the idea that proof of Jesus' divinity is proof that Jesus is Supreme Being, Jehovah, and even proof that Jehovah is more than one person, etc. Of course, in reality, Jesus' divinity does not prove that Jesus is the God is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -- Acts 3:13-26.
There is no scripture in the Bible, however, that "proves" the doctrine of the trinity. For any and every scripture presented to supposedly support the trinitarian doctrine, many assumptions have to formulated beyond what is written and then the assumptions have to be added to the scriptures in order to "see" the trinity concept in the scriptures.
While we accept the Syriac, which would have Peter saying “our Lord and Savior” as Peter states several times in his letters, there is a dispute regarding this verse over whether Sharp’s “article+substantive-kai-substantive” rule should apply or not. (Of course, if the Syriac is correct, as we believe, there is no need for this dispute. Additionally, there is also the assumption that Peter would have such a rule in mind when he wrote 2 Peter 1:1, and also assuming that the Syriac is not what Peter wrote. Sharp’s first rule of Greek grammar states: “When two personal nouns of the same case are connected by the copulative kai, if the former has the definite article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person.” In accordance with this, his rule #6 states: “If they are connected by the copulative, and both have the article, they relate also to different persons.” He then has other rules that give “exceptions” to these rules. We should note that his rules and exceptions cannot be applied to the Septuagint Greek with any degree of consistency, so we cannot be for sure how valid these rules are. Sharp’s purpose for his study was to prove that Jesus is God, and the manner in which he narrows the rules and exceptions as applied to the NT Greek seems to narrow these rules to suit the purpose he sought. For the first rule to apply, both must be personal, both must be singular, and both must be non-proper (i.e., common terms, not proper names). Sharp makes an exception to his rule #6 for John 20:28, on the grounds that the evidence shows that it is speaking of one person.
See our study on John 20:28:
Assuming the validity of Sharp’s rules and exceptions, etc., the question often raised is, are proper names being used in 2 Peter 1:1, or does the context indicate that two different persons are being referred to? Is there contextual evidence that shows that two persons, and not one, are being referred to? Was Peter -- if he did write this expression as it appear in most manuscripts -- trying to follow some alleged rule of Greek grammar to indicate that Jesus is God, or was he thinking of God and Jesus as two separate persons when he wrote 2 Peter 1:1? Sharp, of course, in accordance with the purpose of his study, concluded that Peter is definitely calling Jesus “God” in 2 Peter 1:1. Our question is, is his conclusion solid?
Many argue that in 2 Peter 1:1, “God” can be viewed as a proper name, and that “Savior Jesus Christ” can also viewed as a proper name, which would call for an exception to Sharp’s general rule, and mean that two different persons are being spoken of. Believing as we do, that the Syriac more than likely represents what Peter actually wrote, we can only address this from the their assumption that Peter actually wrote the phrase as it appears in the Textus Receptus (and other Greek texts), which assumption we do not share.
Another scriptural exception to Sharp’s rule is that provided by evidence and context. What does evidence and context demonstrate regarding Jesus and God in 2 Peter 1:1? We note a tradition found in the New Testament letters that show that it was usual to start their greetings by references both the Father and his Son, to Jesus and to the God of Jesus. (Romans 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2,3; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2,3; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2,3; 1 Thessalonians 1:1,3; 2 Thessalonians 1:1,2; 1 Timothy 1:1,2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:1; Philemon 1:3; Hebrews 1:1;2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 1:3; 2 John 1:3) This gives another reason to believe that, if Peter did actual use the word “God” here, rather “the Lord” (Syriac), then it should be viewed as applied to the God and Father of Jesus (Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3), not to Jesus.
Further evidence can be seen in the context, where Peter makes references to “God” as the Father, and distinguishes “God” from Jesus (1 Peter 1:2,3,21; 2:5; 3:18,21; 4:10; 2 Peter 1:17); thus it is highly unlikely that Peter would have meant anything different in 2 Peter 1:1. Even in the following verse Peter distinguishes between God and Jesus, thus the context does indicate two persons are being referred to. (2 Peter 1:2) This is the basis for some translations that render this in such a way so as to show a distinction between “God” and “Our Savior, Jesus Christ”.
Below are some other renderings of the phrase from 2 Peter 1:1, some of which show a distinction is indicated between God and Jesus:
the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ — Third Millenium Bible translation
of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ — New Revised Standard Version, margin
through the righteousness of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah — The Complete Jewish Bible translation
through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ — Webster’s Bible Translation
righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. — Weymouth New Testament
the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ — New International Version
our God and the savior Jesus Christ — New American Bible translation, margin
the righteousness of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ: — Concordant Literal New Testament
thro’ the veracity of our God, and of Jesus Christ. — Daniel Mace New Testament (1729)
the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ — Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE, by Jay P. Green, Sr.
the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ — Simple English Bible translation
share the faith that God in his justice has equally allotted to us; as well as that of our Saviour Jesus Christ. — 21st Century NT
Of course, as has already been stated, if the Syriac manuscript is correct — which is our first consideration, the word “God” does not even appear in 2 Peter 1:1.
At any rate, one should see, at the least, that it is very questionable that Peter would be referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but any such usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is the one God who is the source of all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Thus, even if Peter did apply the word THEOS to Jesus in 2 Peter 1:1, there is still nothing in the verse that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person, and that Jesus is a person of God, etc.
Below are some links we recommend, although we do not necessarily agree with all that is said.
Our Savior Jesus Christ by Greg Stafford
B-Greek: Sharp’s Rule and Quasi-Propr Names (Forum Discussions)
BGreek Discussion: Another Carson Question, Granville-Sharp Rule
BGreek: Final Thoughts on Sharp’s Rule – Greg Stafford; see also Correction
BGreek Forum Discussion: Sharp’s Rule
**************
No comments:
Post a Comment