[B-Greek] FW: FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"

Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Sep 27 19:51:57 EDT 2008


Dear Nicholas,

First, the references to DIKAIOSUNH and TSADDIQ are referring to the OT
background via the LXX that Peter would know about quite well. Add to that the
corresponding DIKAIOSUNH of Jesus Christ. This was not just any old
righteousness. Peter, while using Greek, is thinking in a Semitic worldview,
i.e. "a righteousness or conformity to the revealed character of God as revealed
in the TORAH," but now, as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Second, "TOIS ISOTIMON hMIN LAXOUSIN PISTIN, "to the same kind as us received
faith." PISTIN is the Accusative Singular of PISTIS and is the object of TOIS
... LAXOUSIN ( 2nd Aor Masc Part Dat Pl of LAGXANW) that was channeled,
"THROUGH" (EN) the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Why not
DIA? Who knows. John in quoting Jesus in John 14:6 uses DIA EMOU, "through me."
Thus, it is by means of "the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"
that we have faith which is the same kind of faith that Peter has. (The
Calvinism vs Arminianism debate over this issue I will NOT discuss here since it
is against the list guidelines; it is too volatile a theological topic).

Third, Peter is using a small chiasm in verse 1.

    1:1a    SUMEWN PETROS DOULOS KAI APOSTOLOS IHSOU XRISTOU
        1:1b    TOIS ISOTIMON hMIN LAXOUSIN PISTIN
    1:1c    EN DKIAIOSUNH TOU QEOU hMWN KAI SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU.

Fourth, the last clause is very much similar to Titus 2:13, "...TOU MEGALOU QEOU
KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU." Thus, II Peter 1:1c is not unique to either
Peter or Paul.

En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nicholas Lamme" <nlamme at midamerica.edu>
To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] FW: FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"


> Hello all,
>
>      Thank you for some very thoughtful responses to my query.  I have an
> couple of additional thoughts for clarity sake.  First, does what Bryant
> wrote apply here: "DIKAIOSUNH + cognates translate the Hebrew TSADDIQ +
> cognates in the LXX."  I cannot discern the subsequent presence of any
> cognates. I would be interested in a possible/viable OT connection here, and
> would be solicitous of any specific references in LXX.
>     Additionally, I have two primary remarks to make.  First, Bryant has
> written: "Be that as it may, it is being used as the "means or agency" of
> DIKAIOSUNH."  I have read this in commentaries, it is reflected in all
> standard translations, and of course, it has been defended here.  Still, two
> questions I have raised remain unanswered.  So, I will state them clearly.
> Is it significant that PISTIS and EN DIKAIOSUNHi are juxtaposed?  Why does
> Peter not place PISTIS between TOIS and LAXOUSIN?  There may be a
> grammatical reason that I am overlooking, but barring that, it would seem
> that EV DIKAIOSUNHi...(with all that follows it) logically modifies the noun
> PISTIS instead of the participle + modifiers TOIS...LAXOUSIN.  If this is
> the case, I find means/agency hard to understand in this context.
>     This leads to my second question.  Granted I am wrong and Peter implies
> means/agency here, what does he mean.  I am asking for an interpretive leap
> here.  If EN DIKAIOSUNHi...CRISTOU somehow referred to ISOTIMON hHMIN (in
> other words, to the nature of quality of the faith) then it would be more
> understandable.  Through the righteousness of God, their faith is of "like
> preciousness" (I like the Spanish: igualmente preciosa que la nuestra),
> having the same cause.  But, I simply don't see how that is viable
> grammatically.  If EV DIKAOSUNHi refers rather to the receiving of faith, I
> confess that I am confused as to its implication or meaning.  How do
> believers receive faith "by means of" or "through" the righteousness of
> Jesus Christ?  To piggy back that, what Peter says may be as important as
> what he doesn't say.  This may be simply rhetorical, but why not simply use
> DIA?  It's far more straight forward.  I hope my questions with regard to
> this verse are clarifying.
>     My second remark is about the full phrase: EN DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU hHMWN
> SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU.  This is unique. DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU is familiar
> enoough, but this is unique.  The question that arises is why does Peter
> feel the need to modify DIKAIOSUNHi in this way?  Why not simply "the
> righteousness of God" or "the righteousness of Jesus Christ"?  I think the
> question is only answered with reference to the context of the book (as far
> as this is discernable).  What I have written before applies here, that
> Peter's statement is quite understandable by contrast to the antithesis,
> i.e. the false false teachers of chapter 2. Among other things, Gnostic
> sects (or proto-Gnostic as the case may be) are fundamentally
> anti-historical and they deny the imminence and personality of God who is
> active in the lives of men (and women).  These are two fundamental
> assumptions that the whole Christian faith hangs on.  In one verse, Peter
> strikes at the very foundation of their false teaching.  Nowhere is there
> greater proof of and imminent and personal God who is actively involved in
> the history and lives of his people than in the historical person of Jesus
> Christ.  He was not a cleverly devised myth/tale (1:16), but real and
> historical.  This is anathema to any form of Gnostic teaching.  The two are
> incompatible and Peter begins his polemic in defense of the faith once for
> all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) in his very first verse (albeit
> indirectly).    At least this is how I am interpreting his intentions in
> writing.  My point is this:  I wholeheartedly agree that " This
> righteousness is necessary for our own justification both in its forensic
> and ethical aspects. It is impossible to have otherwise".  I think that this
> is more than implied here.  But there is more going on behind the scenes
> than this.  The Gnostic or proto-Gnostic faith is completely antithetical to
> the Christian faith.  They have two different objects.  The Christian faith
> is in the historical work of the person of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
> and the other is not.  I hope this was clarifying.
>
> Nicholas Lamme
> CLIR
> Guadalupe, Costa Rica
> www.clir.net
>
>
> What Peter is addressing in v.1
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicholas Lamme" <nlamme at midamerica.edu>
> To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: 27. september 2008 02:43
> Subject: [B-Greek] FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
> >
> > Elizabeth,
> >
> >     I certainly think you are right to take into account the different
> > authorial styles.  I know I am venturing off the strictly grammatical here,
> > but my overall reading of the book obviously influences my interpretations
> > of its parts, even these grammatical questions.  I promise that the
> > following will have a point.  My understanding of 2 Peter revolves around
> > the supposed antagonists of chapter 2, who appear to be incipient Gnostics,
> > who by their teaching have denied two principle presuppositions upon which
> > the Christian faith rests: 1) a personal and imminent God who is actively at
> > work in the lives of his people as well as in the affairs of pagan nations;
> > 2) the historicity of the scriptural witness.  Even in his first two verses,
> > he seems to be attacking (albeit indirectly) the very core of the
> > destructive teachings of the false teachers in chapter 2.
> >
> > Now to the point:
> >
> >    2 Peter is not primarily concerned with the ethical.  I think that he
> > labors to show how ones life flows form ones doctrine.  A faulty foundation
> > issues forth in a weak and ultimately fallen structure.  I do not think that
> > Peter has in mind forensic justification in the way Paul would.  If he does,
> > he certainly does not express himself like Paul.  But is it not possible
> > that by the DIKAIOSUNH...IHSOU CRISTOU he has in mind the whole work of God
> > on behalf of his people?  Thus, their faith is of equal value or like
> > preciousness because the faith of the Apostle and the faith of the reader
> > share the same object.  By this reading, DIKAIOSUNH is a synecdoche for the
> > whole work of Jesus Christ.
> >
> >    I hope that I have been clear about my thought process.  If EN is in
> > fact a marker of means or agency, and the thrust is primarily ethical, then
> > what does he mean by the "justice" of our God and Savior Jesus Christ?  And
> > how does the justice of God issue forth in faith?  In other words, how have
> > these believers come to obtain faith "by means of" God's justice?  It seems
> > hard to square this with the overall teaching of the NT.  I'd appreciate any
> > thoughts or critique of my process if I seem to be failing at some point.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Nicholas Lamme
> > CLIR
> > Guadalupe, Costa Rica
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
>
> Dear Nicholas,
>
> It is always a problem when dealing with EN. It is a preposition that
> overtaking
> the use of EIS. Be that as it may, it is being used as the "means or agency"
> of
> DIKAIOSUNH.
>
> DIKAIOSUNH + cognates translate the Hebrew TSADDIQ + cognates in the LXX.
> Furthermore, with regards to the passage. DIKAIOSUNH can be used of ethical
> and
> forensic righteousness/justification. Both are always present, BUT the
> context
> will usually determine which aspect is being emphasized. Here I think,
> though,
> that you have forgotten what the rest of the verse says (I'll quote entire
> verse),
>
>     SUMEWN PETROS DOULOS KAI APOSTOLOS INSOU XRISTOU TOIS ISOTIMON hHMIN
> LAXOUSIN PISTIN EN DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU hHMWN SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU.
>
> The phrase, TOU QEOU hHMWN SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU, qualifies the EN
> DIKAIOSUNHi.
> Instead of the forensic/ethical righteousness, it is referring to the
> DIKAIOSUNH
> of "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (I will not go against list guidelines
> on
> the theological ramifications of this clause). This entire clause of the
> "righteousness of God" is used, as you know, in Romans. I think that it is
> referring to that which is inherent in God = Jesus Christ. The KJV and NIV,
> translate it as "through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
> Christ."
> This righteousness is necessary for our own justification both in its
> forensic
> and ethical aspects. It is impossible to have otherwise.
>
> En Xristwi,
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:42:35 +0300
> To: Nicholas Lamme <nlamme at midamerica.edu>, B-Greek
> <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] FW:  2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
>
> Thanks for a good question.
>
> As George has clarified, EN can have a wide range of meanings in different
> contexts. Having just
> gone
> through Ephesians again, I remember the phrase EN CRISTWi which is so
> predominant in that letter.
> The meaning is usually "by means of", "by way of" or - to spell it out more:
> "on the basis of and by
> means of what X has done."
>
> You are right that DIKAIOSUNH does not mean "justice". I am dismayed to see
> how poorly standard
> English translations have handled this verse. They are either so literal
> that the meaning is
> obscure, or if they try to be clearer, they only make their
> misunderstandings clear. Well, I suppose
> they are just echoing the commentaries which all seem to flounder. This puts
> me in the awkward
> position to claim that pretty much all commentators and translations have
> misunderstood the word. At
> least all those I have been able to check.
>
> Louw and Nida explains DIKAIOSUNH as follows: "the act of doing what God
> requires - 'righteousness,
> doing what God requires, doing what is right,'" or you could say "doing the
> will of God." This is
> the sense of the word in all 6 occurrences in 1 and 2 Peter.
>
> In 2 Peter 1:1, we are reminded that Jesus did the will of God through
> giving his life as a ransom
> for us, and our acceptance of and faith in this fact is precious.
>
> In a sense, then, the word does point to the work of Christ, but the focus
> is on the the work he did
> to save us as indicated by the description of Jesus as "our Saviour".
>
> Iver Larsen
> SIL Bible Translation Consultant
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.4/1695 - Release Date: 09/27/08 1:11
PM
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list