Theological Punctuation
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1 NASB
Our God and Savior, – Peter, actually Shim’on called Kepha (i.e. Petros in Greek), is a Jew. Yes, he believes that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, but Peter is not a Christian anymore than Paul or Yeshua was a Christian. That means that the comma in this verse has theological significance. Of course, there are no commas in the original Greek text, so where the translators place the punctuation is a matter of translator opinion, not textual accuracy. In this case, by placing the comma after “our God and Savior” the translator makes the statement appear as if Yeshua HaMashiach is both God and Savior. That is to say, the translator interprets the text as Trinitarian and inserts punctuation to make it so.
But the Greek text says no such thing. The Greek text is tou theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou. Now, should it be read, “of our God and [our] Savior Yeshua HaMashiach,” reading the two nouns as two separate persons or should it be read as if “our God and Savior” is one-title of the same person? The only determining factor from the text is the use of the genitive in Greek, that is, how the nouns are modified to show possession (like modifying the noun theos to theou). The pronoun “our” (hemon) could be applied to both nouns just as we might say, “That’s our house and car,” meaning that the house is ours and the car is ours. Greek rules of grammar allow the pronoun to precede or follow the noun, so the position of hemon does not determine the intended meaning. The text turns out to be ambiguous. In other words, from the text alone one cannot determine if Peter intends to assert that Yeshua HaMashiach is God or if God and the Savior Yeshua are, in his mind, two separate beings. Context and culture must rule the day.
This means that a doctrine that was developed 350 years after Peter wrote these words cannot be the basis for determining what Peter meant. The translator’s comma is excluded. It is illegitimate translation since it introduces an idea not necessarily present in the text. Furthermore, Peter was an orthodox Jew. His behavior throughout the gospels and the book of Acts clearly demonstrates that he followed Torah and the traditions. His very name, Shim’on, is an allusion to the Shema. If Peter (or any of the other disciples) changed his belief from one God who is God alone, as numerous texts in the Tanakh (Peter’s Bible) assert to one being who is God in three persons, one would expect that such a radical break from strict Jewish monotheism would have at least been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament. Instead what we have at best are inferences that depend on a prior commitment to a Trinitarian idea. And none of these inferences can be reconciled with the Shema as understood by the Jewish believing community of the first century.
Many followers take the relaxed approach that these technical details really don’t matter that much. After all, everyone still wants to serve God, acknowledges that Jesus saved them and looks for the leading of the Spirit. So why make such a big deal out of something like a comma! Their approach is that as long as the final result is a heart for God, all these other things are just technical confusion. This is sort of like saying, “Yes, of course we know that Christmas isn’t really the time that Jesus was born, but does it really matter now? People who celebrate Christmas are still honoring the birth of Jesus, so who really cares if they have the date right? Sure, it might have started as a pagan holiday, but now it’s Christian. The history doesn’t really matter anymore.”
If you want to believe that the history doesn’t matter, you can continue on that path and still attempt to worship God and honor His son according to your tradition. But it won’t be biblical. If you want to believe that Peter converted to Christianity and was a Trinitarian, you can marshal evidence to support your claim, but it won’t be consistent with Peter’s Jewish background or His behavior. And you won’t find direct evidence in the text either.
But doctrines are powerful forces in religion and they usually triumph over the text and the context because we attach our faith to the doctrines, not to the experience of God. We have faith in our beliefs rather than in our Creator. And we are comfortable believing what we want to believe. Why rock the boat?
Topical Index: Trinity, Savior, hemon, our, 2 Peter 1:1
I agree with the obvious theological manipulating on the translations and would classify it under the “precepts of the forefathers”, against which Paul warns.
But is not calling Kefa a Jew and talking about First Century Jews, exactly the same “error”?
I’m no biblical scholar, but those who do study ancient languages are finding that what our modern translations refer to as “Jews” or “Jewish” can refer to several things. People from Judea. People descended from Judah or Israel, whether practicing that way of life or not. People practicing what was recognized as a “Jewish” way of life. Peter and other first-century Jews were indeed Jewish and followed the Jewish Messiah. There was no “Christianity.” And there was no “Judaism.” Rome recognized philosophies and traditions, among which “Jewishness” was one. Religions as we classify them were a later development. The fact that SOME Jews persecuted Peter and his companions (out of jealousy? spite?) does not negate the fact that MANY Jews decided to follow the Messiah. First-century people would recognize that such followers were living a way of life based on the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.
Manipulating can go both ways. I am not the only one who considers the manuscripts that the new translations have come out of to be of gnostic origin, and even anti-christ, as they nibble away, here a little and there a little, at His Deity, His saving role and at His pre-incarnation. One of only hundreds of such manipulations can be found in the omission of the phrase that the King James Version renders “kick against the pricks” in Acts 9:5. As that was a common Greek and Roman expression about resisting a deity, and was the interesting question Yeshua posed to Saul on that Damascus Road, obviously referring to Himself, of course it had to go, right?
Why do we assume that Yeshua has to be God the Son? Plainly stated in scripture, He is “the Son of God.”
We are victims of the Counsel of Nicea and Chalcedon, and 1700 or so years of muddled, anti-Jewish thought.
The issue is not “deity.” Many first century citizens of the Roman Empire recognized the status of divine as a wider umbrella than our definition. Today we think “deity” and “divine” refer to GOD, YHVH or the One and Only Most High. But in the first century not only were there MANY “gods” (all divine) but there were also several MEN who were considered elevated to the status of “god.” Julius Caesar was one such and there are plenty of inscriptions calling him “god.” Obviously, this is not new. Pharaoh was considered a god as were most kings in the ancient world. So an expression that idiomatically refers to resistance to a deity does NOT necessarily imply that that deity in question is the ONE GOD YHVH. Once again we must consider the language IN ITS CONTEXT, not in ours.
Trinity is a late, added, greek, unbiblical Christian theological concept. Anyone who cares a little about the text and history can see that. But that raises the question, what did the disciples did believe about Yeshua?
Jewish monotheism as we know it today is also later than Yeshua’s days. Was the expected messiah merely a human from the line of David, anointed by God for a purpose?
The term ‘son of man’ ,alluding to Daniel 7, Psalm 110 and Yeshua’s comment on it, strange verses like Zechariah 2:10-11 and Isaiah 48:12-16 and various places in the prophets were it’s hard to draw a line between YHVH coming to reign and be a shepherd and David, or a descendant of him, coming for the same purpose, all create a Jewish Messiah that is both human and divine. It doesn’t work for Greek thinkers so they came up with the trinity, but why is it a problem for the Hebraic mindset, where one day is light and darkness, man and woman are one flesh?
So Skip, how was/is the Ruach HaKodesh viewed by ancient and current Jews? We know that the Spirit was placed on David and others. Is He separate or a part of God in their view?
The “Spirit of the Lord” is the action of YHVH in the world of men. It is a function, not a person. Much more to be said, later.
I am currently going with function, too, Skip, but it is also perfectly clear that this Function can be grieved, along with the entire gamut of personal reaction and reason that we live with, too. It is impossible to read that back out of the scripture. And who ever said that my personhood is not actually defined by my function, and not the other way around?
To say that “the Spirit of God is grieved” is like saying, “my spirit is grieved”. My spirit is not a person apart from me – it is the innermost part of me that is given from God. It is an essential part of who I am. The expression of God’s spirit being grieved seems to me to be at least partly an anthropomorphism that suggests that He is grieved to the very core of Himself. The root of the Hebrew word Ruach has the meaning, “to blow” or “to breathe”. As a noun it also means wind or breath. The breath comes from within, but acts without, thus the “breath” of God comes from within God, but acts in the world. That does not make the Ruach a separate “person”. Just as breath is exhaled, it is also inhaled, so the Ruach can be “breathed out” from God, and it can be “breathed in” back to God.
This is a very deep discussion – one that leads us to question many of the things the theologians have taught us over the centuries. That is not to say that everything they have taught is wrong – our challenge is to sift out the wheat from the chaff.
I’ve also realised this over the years – our God is much bigger than any attempt we could possibly make to describe Him. For me, the idea of the trinity is too limiting, and too much like man making God in his own image. Isn’t that the opposite from the way it’s supposed to be?
Typo. I meant to say “The root of the Hebrew word…”, not the foot. Didn’t see it until I hit the “Post” button.
I fixed it
Thanks. 🙂
I agree, Rodney. I’ve often said that God is much bigger than we realize. I once read a book that claimed God couldn’t do what He does without being three Persons. That sounded pretty confining to me.
Excellent points, Rodney, thank you.
Isn’t it the scholarly consensus that 2Peter was in no way written by Peter, but rather by someone claiming to be Peter, to get their thoughts accepted, through the weight of Peter’s name. So, I am not sure what to do with pseudonymous writings in the NT in general. Any thoughts on this? As I recall, only about seven of the “Pauline” letters were actually written by Paul. NT letters Ephesians, Colossians, 1Timothy, 2Timothy and several more are supposedly written by Paul, but in fact were not, but were written by someone posing as Paul. What about “inspiration” and these letters?
There is actually quite a lot of debate over authorship of these letters. Liberal theologians tend to reject apostolic authorship. Conservatives accept it. The arguments on both sides are lengthy and complicated. For an excellent discussion, see Guthrie’s book on the New Testament
My studies of the historical Jesus have led me down many trails. As Guthrie points out, “It must be added that for the New Testament, the Word of God is found through the acts and teachings of Jesus. God’s revelation is also contained in the writings of the Apostles.” So if many of the letters in the NT are not the writings of the Apostles, but are in fact written by someone claiming to be that Apostle, where exactly does that leave us?
Canonized! Since you quoted Guthrie, did you avail yourself of his discussion of authorship in New Testament Introduction?
Good day Skip, and peace to everyone who love peace. The who liberal crusade against the New Testament is simply a joke, not worthy of debate. Conservatives who actually debate them are pulled into a never ending loop. The liberal scientific method for research is a joke. They have their assumption (myth claim), then they skip the Method, and interpret the data to agree with the assumption. Then their assumption always end up being their conclusion.
Now honest researcher on the other hand begins with a hypothesis (assumption) and asked constructive question to improve his search for results, and actually has a Method. Thus when a conclusion is reached by the researcher another is able to follow up and examine his results since he left a method to follow. If the method is off, then the new researcher can introduce a better one. Now the Liberal, since his assumption just about automatically becomes his conclusion leaves no valid method the follow. Here is where they makes use of their intolerance. Everyone who does not agree with his worthless “scholarly research” is ignorant, stupid, intolerant, etc. However they do come up with some justification in order for their conjecture not to appear empty.
Take 1 Timothy for example. This letter of Paul causes to much pain for liberals, so they say it wasn’t written by Paul. That’s the assumption, so where are the Method they use to lead them to a proper conclusion. I really want to see their methods so I can follow up on their “research”. These same conjectures are used by Trinitarians. But who came first, the trinitarian or the liberal? Each time a trinitarian assumes the trinity, then I automatically cut them off and focus on the assumption instead. This automatically stops the debate (which is just two monologues) and we enter into a discussion instead, this Method I use is an effective way to stop falsehood from being propagated.
This method I learned while reading Peter and John in Acts. Peter and John standing before the Sanhedrin, instead of entering into a debate (two monologues), just stated the fact of the resurrection. They did not use words like “supposedly” with reference to the resurrection, or used arguments like conservatives like to use. So to dispel conjectures, I usually ask someone’s method to getting his conclusion. If he don’t have (that’s about always with liberals), then I ask how they reached their conclusion. The results are very comic, especially when someone uses the whole “most scholars don’t consider x written by y” line.
Skip, you said I was cryptic with my first post, but that’s because when I start to type I never seem to stop.
Peace.
Excuse all my typing errors. I was just reminded of how people communicated by writing in the past. And with this I realize how great the internet is! We should take advantage of this to speak the truth if the Good News.
I really appreciate that you pointed this out Skip… it reminded me of our Evangelical “dispensational doctrine” on eschatology. A punctuation does matter. Without careful examination of scripture we will get off course. As ever so slightly as it may seem, following an arrow that is slightly off course to it’s destination still means you’re off course…kinda wish my former mentors had been a little more careful when dividing the word… better yet maybe I should have been a little more careful….hmmm