Is it Jesus or God and Jesus - 2 Peter 1:1

[why1942]

Hi,

I was working on 2 Peter 1:1 this evening and a question came to me; thought I would ask. At the end of this verse it states:

by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Is this verse saying [1] "by the righteousness of Jesus, who is our God and Savior" or is it saying [2] "by the righteousness of our God [the Father] and the righteousness of our Savior Jesus Christ" ?

The LITV definitely leans toward # 2 by grouping God and Savior together, adding an "our" before Savior and inserting a "," saying "the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ." Several other translations specifically identify Jesus as BOTH God and Savior, while others tend to remain more accurate to the text and do not insert additional interpretation.

I think it's interesting to note: I looked at the NWT because I know the Witnesses do not think Jesus is part of the trinity and they have inserted the definite article in front of Savior, "by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ" which is clearly not in the Greek. At least they used the brackets, unlike the LITV for the second "our."

I've found this tendency in the NKJV also, to make minor additions and subtractions but those changes do not come through in the final text (i.e. they don't bother to mark it in some way so we know they are fiddling).

Trinity doctrine aside (and no I'm not arguing against the trinity here), is there something possibly dealing with the grammar of the Greek text that specifically determines if this is # 1 or # 2 or is it left up to us to decide? It could technically be either one [theologically], I'm just curious.

why1942

[markedward]

Is this verse saying [1] "by the righteousness of Jesus, who is our God and Savior" or is it saying [2] "by the righteousness of our God [the Father] and the righteousness of our Savior Jesus Christ" ?

It's a tricky thing. The same question can be applied to a few other verses in the New Testament.

One guy came up with (what is now called) the Granville Sharp Rule: if two nouns are connected simply by an 'and', but only the first noun has the definite article 'the', then the two nouns refer to the same thing. In other words, according to the Granville Sharp Rule, since the Greek text literally says 'the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ', with the word 'the' used only before the first noun (God), but not also the second noun (Savior), then the two nouns refer to the same thing: Jesus Christ who is 'the God and Savior'.

But, Granville Sharp's Rule is a pretty subjective one, and different circumstances can mess it up. For example, the Greek text of 2 Peter 1.1 has the word 'of us' (meaning 'our') after the words 'the God'... this would seem to distinguish 'the God' and 'Savior Jesus Christ'.

Point blank, either interpretation is possible, but we really should determine the true meaning from the surrounding context, and whether the writer is consistent with how he speaks about each 'God' and 'Savior Jesus Christ'.

I think it's interesting to note: I looked at the NWT because I know the Witnesses do not think Jesus is part of the trinity and they have inserted the definite article in front of Savior, "by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ" which is clearly not in the Greek.

This technically does not matter, because Greek uses definite articles in a different way than English does. Case in point, John 1.1 starts off as 'In the beginning'. Every major English translation has that word 'the'... even though the Greek doesn't have a definite article. The Greek text literally says 'In beginning', while the specific 'beginning' the author has in mind is implied by verse 3 (the 'beginning' of creation, i.e. Genesis 1.1's 'beginning').

At many times the English has to provide an implied definite article from the Greek (such as in John 1.1, with 'in [the] beginning'), and at many times the English removes a definite article when translating the Greek because it sounds awkward in English (such as John 1.1, 'and the word was with the God', where the 'the' is present in the Greek).



The opinion I have on 2 Peter 1.1 (given at the end of this post) is based on Peter's writing style throughout the rest of the epistle, as well as the parallels that are to be found in the epistle of Jude. (Second Peter and Jude are clearly related. If you haven't heard this before, I suggest printing out each epistle, and using separate markers to highlight sections that read similarly. Second Peter, sometimes, will take a single thought from Jude and stretch it out into multiple statements, sometimes a paragraph apart from each other.)

Verse 2 gives the typical blessing, where 'God' and 'Jesus our Lord' are referred to separately. In every other epistle of the NT that has an opening blessing for the readers, 'God' is never used to refer to Jesus. Applying this back to verse 1, we immediately see that we don't have a reason to see 'God' as referring to Jesus. After this, when speaking of Jesus, Peter consistently uses the titles 'Lord', 'Christ', 'Savior', 'Master', or 'Son', but nowhere else does he apply the title 'God' to Jesus. And when speaking of God he will consistently refer to him as simply 'God', or as 'Father'.

The first ambiguous time where 'Lord' (a title used several times for Jesus, but not for God) might have been applied to God (verse 2.9), the parallel with Jude (verse 5) shows that Peter is referring to Jesus. (Compare 2 Peter 2.1-9 and Jude 5-7 each in their full contexts: the 'Master' and 'Lord' from 2 Peter is parallel to 'Jesus' from Jude.) The second time, Peter uses the title 'Lord' in verse 3.8 when he paraphrases a Psalm that speaks about 'the LORD' (that is 'Yahweh'). Verses 3.9-10 continue this, but the most that can be said of this is that Peter is thinking of 'Yahweh', which could refer to either God the Father or to Jesus. (Compare Romans 10.9,13 where the 'Lord' Jesus is effectively identified with 'the LORD' (Yahweh), and Romans 11.2-3, where God is identified 'the LORD'.)

All in all, Peter does look to Jesus in a very high light. However, at no point in the epistle does Peter give the title of 'God' to Jesus. Within Peter's manner of writing, God is 'God' and 'Father' (and possibly once 'Lord'), while Jesus is spoken of distinctly as 'Lord' (at least nine times), 'Christ', 'Savior', 'Master', or 'Son'.

In my opinion, 'God' and 'Savior Jesus Christ' in verse 1.1 should be read separately.

[Nobunaga]

I have no experience with Greek it seems Hebrew grammar follows a similar pattern if there is only one subject.

concerning the verse it will be the by the righteousness of Christ by which you will be declared justified by faith, His imputed righteousness given to you and your sins imputed to Him, this is the good news.

I think Peter may have just meditated on Isaiah 61:10 before he wrote this letter.

I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

So which is it God or Jesus? i would say this is a false dichotomy as you cannot have one without the other, the two are eternally linked.... without God the Father sending the Son you have no Saviour/Jesus, and without Jesus you have no garment of salvation or robe of righteousness.

[shepherdsword]

This technically does not matter, because Greek uses definite articles in a different way than English does. Case in point, John 1.1 starts off as 'In the beginning'. Every major English translation has that word 'the'... even though the Greek doesn't have a definite article. The Greek text literally says 'In beginning', while the specific 'beginning' the author has in mind is implied by verse 3 (the 'beginning' of creation, i.e. Genesis 1.1's 'beginning').

At many times the English has to provide an implied definite article from the Greek (such as in John 1.1, with 'in [the] beginning'), and at many times the English removes a definite article when translating the Greek because it sounds awkward in English (such as John 1.1, 'and the word was with the God', where the 'the' is present in the Greek).

I totally disagree. While there are many instances where an implied(definite and indefinite) article is used it is done so only to conform the text to English grammar.
It is clear that "In the beginning" needs an article. What does context demand? How many beginnings are there? Since,as implied by context,there is only one of this particular type of beginning ,the definite article is used.
The new world translation of the christian greek scriptures isn't consistent in it's use of articles in John 1:1. The greek literally translates. In the beginning was the word and the word was toward the (ho)God and the word was God. An article isn't required to conform the last part of the text to english grammar. The translator must be consistent with prior usage in the text if he wants to insert an article. The definite article is used on all other nouns in the text. If they were at least honest in their error they would have used the definite article. Instead of translating it "and the word was "a" God,it would read "and the word was "the" God. The use of the indefinite article is dishonest and inconsistent. That being said...

It's a tricky thing. The same question can be applied to a few other verses in the New Testament.

...I agree the OP's question is tricky. It could go either way. Sharp's rule backs their being the same but Peter's prior usage implies difference.
We have to remember that Peter's greek grammar is pretty bad in places. The appearance of "God" and "Savior Jesus Christ" as being the same could just be a lack of proper grammar on Peter's part. I lean toward Mark's opinion on this one. However,if you want to rebuke me for pointing out bad grammar in an inspired text and say the grammar errors are inspired then I won't resist. Interpreting them as being the same doesn't faze me.

*disclaimer,I hold to the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opinion of Mark and I on the text doesn't threaten that position as this is proved conclusively in numerous other places .Please don't PM me about it

[Raybob]

..Trinity doctrine aside (and no I'm not arguing against the trinity here), is there something possibly dealing with the grammar of the Greek text that specifically determines if this is # 1 or # 2 or is it left up to us to decide? It could technically be either one [theologically], I'm just curious.

why1942

There are plenty of other scriptures that makes one wonder why there is any doubt. Jesus is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:1-14)


And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
(Mar 12:29)

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
(Act 9:5)

[IMINXTC]

Jesus Christ = God and Savior - One person, two descriptions.

"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." Is 45:21

[Longsufferer]

If we hold to the newer versions, then the politics of their agenda of the trinity is evident in their translating; but not in previous versions:
verse 1. "through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
verse 2. "through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord"

[Watchman]

This passage is an example of why scholarship alone cannot be relied upon! Two very good explanations have been given that result in disagreement. One of my study aids is a set of books by Kenneth Wuest. He writes:

The expression, "God and Saviour" is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, "our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," the expression thus showing that Jesus Christ is the Christian's God; this, in opposition to the cult of the Caesar in which the Roman emperor was the god of the pagan Roman citizen. Because Peter continued to insist upon this teaching, he was martyred.
(from Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Exegesis of II Peter)

blessings,

W

[divaD]

Markedward mentioned verse 2. Why wouldn't that be a valid argument? Why would verse 1 be understood differently than verse 2? Does anyone think there are not two entities in verse 2? Why didn't verse 1 say the following instead, if there's only one entity in veiw here?

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our Saviour Jesus Christ:

But anyway, I tend to agree with Markedward's point. But I had already come to my conclusion before I had even read his reply. His reply was like a 2nd witness to me that I was understanding this verse correctly. The way verse 1 reads to me is like such.

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of THE FATHER and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

But don't worry tho. I still believe Jesus to be God. But I wouldn't think that is the point of verse 1, since it would leave the Father out of the equation. What did Jesus say in relation to righteousness?

Matthew 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


Obviously His righteousness in verse 33 would have to be referring to the Father in verse 32. No reason then to think God in 2 Peter 1:1 would not be meaning this same Father.

[Watchman]

Both are understood to be God...just different manifestations of Him. God, the Father of Jesus, the Christ. One is Spirit, the other is Spirit in a body, yes?

blessings,

W

[JohnOneOne]

It's a tricky thing. The same question can be applied to a few other verses in the New Testament.

One guy came up with (what is now called) the Granville Sharp Rule: if two nouns are connected simply by an 'and', but only the first noun has the definite article 'the', then the two nouns refer to the same thing. In other words, according to the Granville Sharp Rule, since the Greek text literally says 'the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ', with the word 'the' used only before the first noun (God), but not also the second noun (Savior), then the two nouns refer to the same thing: Jesus Christ who is 'the God and Savior'.

But, Granville Sharp's Rule is a pretty subjective one, and different circumstances can mess it up. For example, the Greek text of 2 Peter 1.1 has the word 'of us' (meaning 'our') after the words 'the God'... this would seem to distinguish 'the God' and 'Savior Jesus Christ'.

Point blank, either interpretation is possible, but we really should determine the true meaning from the surrounding context, and whether the writer is consistent with how he speaks about each 'God' and 'Savior Jesus Christ'.

This technically does not matter, because Greek uses definite articles in a different way than English does. Case in point, John 1.1 starts off as 'In the beginning'. Every major English translation has that word 'the'... even though the Greek doesn't have a definite article. The Greek text literally says 'In beginning', while the specific 'beginning' the author has in mind is implied by verse 3 (the 'beginning' of creation, i.e. Genesis 1.1's 'beginning').

At many times the English has to provide an implied definite article from the Greek (such as in John 1.1, with 'in [the] beginning'), and at many times the English removes a definite article when translating the Greek because it sounds awkward in English (such as John 1.1, 'and the word was with the God', where the 'the' is present in the Greek).



The opinion I have on 2 Peter 1.1 (given at the end of this post) is based on Peter's writing style throughout the rest of the epistle, as well as the parallels that are to be found in the epistle of Jude. (Second Peter and Jude are clearly related. If you haven't heard this before, I suggest printing out each epistle, and using separate markers to highlight sections that read similarly. Second Peter, sometimes, will take a single thought from Jude and stretch it out into multiple statements, sometimes a paragraph apart from each other.)

Verse 2 gives the typical blessing, where 'God' and 'Jesus our Lord' are referred to separately. In every other epistle of the NT that has an opening blessing for the readers, 'God' is never used to refer to Jesus. Applying this back to verse 1, we immediately see that we don't have a reason to see 'God' as referring to Jesus. After this, when speaking of Jesus, Peter consistently uses the titles 'Lord', 'Christ', 'Savior', 'Master', or 'Son', but nowhere else does he apply the title 'God' to Jesus. And when speaking of God he will consistently refer to him as simply 'God', or as 'Father'.

The first ambiguous time where 'Lord' (a title used several times for Jesus, but not for God) might have been applied to God (verse 2.9), the parallel with Jude (verse 5) shows that Peter is referring to Jesus. (Compare 2 Peter 2.1-9 and Jude 5-7 each in their full contexts: the 'Master' and 'Lord' from 2 Peter is parallel to 'Jesus' from Jude.) The second time, Peter uses the title 'Lord' in verse 3.8 when he paraphrases a Psalm that speaks about 'the LORD' (that is 'Yahweh'). Verses 3.9-10 continue this, but the most that can be said of this is that Peter is thinking of 'Yahweh', which could refer to either God the Father or to Jesus. (Compare Romans 10.9,13 where the 'Lord' Jesus is effectively identified with 'the LORD' (Yahweh), and Romans 11.2-3, where God is identified 'the LORD'.)

All in all, Peter does look to Jesus in a very high light. However, at no point in the epistle does Peter give the title of 'God' to Jesus. Within Peter's manner of writing, God is 'God' and 'Father' (and possibly once 'Lord'), while Jesus is spoken of distinctly as 'Lord' (at least nine times), 'Christ', 'Savior', 'Master', or 'Son'.

In my opinion, 'God' and 'Savior Jesus Christ' in verse 1.1 should be read separately.

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 2/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:


When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sojourner55]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 2/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:


When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

MOD NOTE:
Hello JohnOneOne. The rules of this board prohibit any promotion of salable products, including publications.

[Raybob]

...When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings...

Hmmm... 430 scholars, and 120 choose "a God". That means the majority, 310 of the scholars, chose "the Word was God" instead of "a God". 430-120=310 scholars.

[Saved7]

MOD NOTE: Thread under review due to the promotion of false doctrine.

[shepherdsword]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 2/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:


When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Sounds like there were 130 "scholars" who didn't understand the rules of the Greek article and who failed to take in to account renderings of Attic literature when the sentence structure and syntax were similar. I like A.T. Robertson's( a master Attic and Kione Greek scholar) thoughts on the passage:

AT Robertson "Word Pictures in the New Testament" And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

Vincent in his word studies backs this with

And the Word was God (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος)In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Joh_1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness” (Meyer).

Both are a good synopsis on the passage that disputes both Modalistic Sabellianism and the error of Arian, therefore backing the Trinity.