One Letter Difference

Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, goodwill toward men. Luke 2:14 KJV

Goodwill – In his book, Windows into the Bible, Marc Turnage notes that there are two readings of the Greek texts of Luke 2:14. One variant uses the Greek word eudokai, rendering the text “on earth peace, goodwill toward men.” The other variant uses eudokias, resulting in the translation, “on earth, peace among men of his will.” The addition of a simple Greek letter (the s at the end of the word) changes the meaning of the entire verse.   In the first case, God’s goodwill is directed toward all mankind. In the second, “His peace [rests] solely upon those of His will, i.e., the elect.”[1] It’s noteworthy that the ESV opts for this second reading, translating the verse, “an on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased.” Turnage points out that these two variant readings reflect two completely different views of God’s redemptive activity. Since manuscripts exist with either reading, the question is not about the words in the text. The question is about the implications of each reading.

The version that suggests God’s favor falls upon those that please Him is supported by the Qumran community and the Dead Sea scrolls. According to the Qumran community, God chooses those whom He will favor from all eternity. In like manner, He also chooses those who are predestined toward disobedience and will eventually be punished. The dualism between the righteous and the wicked can be seen in statements like this: “And what vessel of clay is able to do great deeds wondrously? He is in iniquity from the womb, and until old age in unfaithful guilt. I know no human being is righteous, and perfection of way does not belong to a mortal.”[2] Turnage argues that Yeshua rejected this idea, and that the text in question should be read as God’s proclamation that favor has come upon all men. “The angelic proclamation, then, identified the birth of Jesus as the manifestation of God’s glory, peace, and goodwill upon the earth.”[3] According to Turnage, Yeshua endorsed the movement toward a “Jewish humanism that viewed all people as having worth and value.”[4]

Aside from the historical interest, the two readings of the original text provide us some insight into the later developments of Reformed theology. Out of the sectarian views of the Qumran community, the dualism between the righteous and the wicked is renewed in the thought of Calvin. Predestination, election and God’s unalterable choice is not a new subject. Neither is the consequent doctrine of men being born sinners. All of these powerful themes were present during the time of Yeshua, and he rejected them all. Since every idea has a history, it might be useful to ask, “Where did the Qumran community get the idea of this cosmic dualism?” While a definitive answer may not be available yet, it seems that Hellenism, and in particular the dualism of Plato, made its way into Jewish thinking as early as the fourth century BCE. Perhaps doctrines like those that eventually were espoused by Calvin and the Reformers really began in Plato’s dialogues, making their way into Jewish as well as much later Christian thought. Perhaps if we investigated further we would discover that predestination of the individual, limited atonement, total depravity and sinful nature originated in Platonic philosophy, not in the Scriptures of the Tanakh.

We might also ask, “If we chose the variant reading of the text with the added “s,” how does that affect our behavior?” Do we believe that God’s favor is poured out on all people regardless of their present obedient or disobedient state? Do we act toward all others with God’s grace in mind? Or are we selective, limiting our benevolence to those who show themselves observant? Are we welcoming toward those who do not share our theological point of view? Or are we quick to castigate them as heretics, ignorant and unworthy? How much of our behavior is conditioned by our view of the elect? How much is determined by a wider humanism?

Is Plato hiding in your closet?

Topical Index: Luke 2:14, eudokia, eudokias, goodwill, Qumran, election

[1] Marc Turnage, Windows into the Bible: Cultural & Historical Insights from the Bible for Modern Readers (Logion Press, 2016), p. 235.

[2] Ibid., p. 237. The Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea scrolls, 1QH 12:30-34

[3] Ibid., p. 240.

[4] Ibid., p. 241.

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pieter Jooste

That a wonderful proclamation 2000 years ago can cause such a perplexing (but necessary) contemplation today:
A translation from the Aramaic renders it: “and upon earth, shalom and a goodwill, to the sons of men.”
But then the translator is a Rabbi supporting the Pharisaic against the Essene point of view.
What about interpreting it as: “peace and unity amongst men of good-will”?

I suppose it depends on the purveyor of the “eudokia(s)”, is it man or YHWH?

Gayle Johnson

Thank you, Skip. I have long wondered about this verse, and I never found enough information regarding the particular translations. Trying to discuss this in a group is guaranteed to destroy any “good will” among men. 🙂

Pieter puts it well: “peace and unity amongst men of good-will”

David F

“on earth, peace among men of his will.”

This sounds more like, “but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:6, Duet 5:10)

So could men of His will, then, be those who live according to His Kingdom will and mandate, i.e., living obedient to instructions?

Beth

What I want to know if where did these philosophers get their ideas from?
More and more I’m running into people who once embraced the New Testament and now rejecting it. They wonder who really wrote it. Philosophers, Jews, Gentiles, but not Yeshua’s disciples or Paul. They think it was written by people who were combining all kinds of information and doctrines, and that it’s not reliable. They reject Midrashic methods because they refuse to accept eastern (Hebraic) thought instead of western (Greek). Now that they’ve rejected it, they mock those who still accept it as valid. I’m getting ticked off by it because I don’t like being the object of their amusement.
On the other hand, I like to look for patterns and typology in Scripture. Am I on target by what I think God shows me? I would hope so even if others think I’m insane. So, here I go, about to risk my reputation once again…by saying I see dualism…in the significance of the Levitical sacrifices. It all depends on how you look at things. Rotate the gem and see what you can see in each facet. Chart it out and record what you see.
Theological doctrine bugs me sometimes. Things may or may not be what they appear to be. First we say “yes,” then “no”, then “I don’t know” or “they are both right.” That’s got to be a Rabbinic idea. There’s too much fluidity there. Sometimes there is apparent contradictions that are difficult to sort out. In the end, it all comes down to the CHOICE between life and death; blessing and cursing; obedience or disobedience. Does not God favor those who make the correct choice? I tend to think so. Won’t we have both kinds of goodwill when the earth is renewed? I think so. Will we have it before then? It doesn’t look like it. Forgive me if I’ve appeared to ramble…it’s just how my brain connections work sometimes.

Seeker

Peace I understand as part of the manifestation of God’s kingdom.
Goodwill well if that is a collective word for joy and righteousness the other “ingredients” of God’s kingdom then this would be a proclamation of the coming of the kingdom rather than the tiding or introducing the birth of the messiah…
The question from this probability is… Were the ancient Jews expecting the messiah or the kingdom?

Laurita Hayes

The Hellenization of the Jews was a terrible problem then (and now), I have mourned often. I think one of the worst fall outs of it is that when we see Yeshua correcting this pervasive, non-Jewish thinking, Christians of today have been taught to regard it as Him correcting a JEWISH way of thinking and behaving. Take the story of the Good Samaritan. Now, what do you think happened between the Torah that instructed people to stop (even on the Sabbath day, no less) to pull some stranger’s ox out of a ditch, and the Pharisees, who apparently were teaching that you were contaminated if you touched a seemingly dead person, or near-to-be-dead person, covered with blood and violently attacked? Better to cross over to the other side of the road. Not an ox, but a PERSON! Surely this was a corruption of a Greek idea of ‘purity’.

When I go look at pagan philosophy and the positions of the accepted Jewish mentality of the day, I am seeing more and more of this type of paganism – and gnosticism, too – right in the pages of the New Testament. And we are told that Jesus condemned it because it was JEWISH! Where do you think the foremost university of the day was located? Not in little backwater Palestine! It was to Alexandria that the affluent and influential of the day were sending their finest sons. What do you think they were coming back with?