Comments on: The NIV readalong: You suffered, he suffered, they suffered

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:03:34 +0000

I take TNIV’s “those who have suffered in their bodies are done with sin” as a gnomic or proverbial saying, timeless. It potentially applies to anyone, but suffering precedes (aorist participle) the state of no longer sinning. It may indeed be an actual proverb from another source, but not I think a known one. But note the similarity to Romans 6:2.

One problem with NLT’s rendering is that it obscures the change in the Greek from second person to third person.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:37:26 +0000

Thank you all for the comments. I’m still slightly curious on a couple of things: first, (using the TNIV) the seeming change in verb tense between “arm yourselves” and “those who have [....] are done”. The latter, at least in English, seems to refer to a past object different than “yourselves” – whether this is Christ or an earlier representative Christ-follower than Peter’s audience, I don’t know. I suppose another take might be whether the attitude we are to take is during our suffering or after our suffering.

Second, the changing pronouns between “yourselves” and “those/he”. The NLT made these concordant in the second person. I suppose that the phrase “those who have suffered in their bodies are done with sin” could be seen as a quote of a third-party saying, but usually those are more obviously noted as such. Can anyone comment on how the Greek is written?

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:29:34 +0000

I think it is quite clear that neither NIV nor TNIV intended to allow the HCSB interpretation. In NIV “he” in verse 2 must be the same person as “he” in verse 1. And since I am sure the translators did not intend to suggest that Jesus lived any part of “his earthly life for evil human desires”, they clearly intended this “he” to be a representative reader, not Jesus.

The HCSB interpretation seems to me highly unlikely. It is only possible (if we assume that the author did not mean to make Jesus a sinner) if the last part of verse 1 is a parenthesis. And I can see nothing in the Greek text to suggest this. I can see why the HCSB translators have chosen this reading to safeguard their particular version of Protestant doctrine. But the words translated in NIV “is done with sin” are not appropriate as a description of Jesus’ saving work, but rather mean much more like “has stopped sinning” – something which Jesus didn’t do but is explained in the next verse.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:08:47 +0000

Man, what a good text to look at! I’m no Greek scholar, but I’m more inclined to go with the NIV (the NASB makes the same choice, going with “he”) because that seems to be the closest translation of pathon. Unless the definite article before the participle is where the HCSB gets “the One” that does seem a tiny stretch. Not that it’s any less true theologically and found elsewhere, but in trying to stick to the text as we have it, I would think “he” works best, even if it ends up a little vague. If the text is vague or open ended, we should probably accept it as such.

By: Theophrastus

Theophrastus — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:29:31 +0000

The HCSB is over the top here in its interpretation — it is a possible interpretation, but hardly the only one. For example, here is a quotation from a Catholic commentary for laypeople (the Collegeville Bible Commentary):

A further appeal is made to Christ’s paschal transition, once more to his suffering. “Christ suffered in the flesh.” This is literally applied to converts who, because of conversion to Christianity, will suffer after baptism. But this suffering is proof that converts have in fact “broken with sin” (v. 1). There can be no thought of lapsing from Christian holiness back into vice; enough time was spent on vice in former pagan lives; Christianity means a death to that old way, a radical break with the past.

This is a much simpler reading of the text than seeing “the One” as Christ, but rather seeing it as continuing the discussion of the baptized individual (end of ch. 3) who forsakes the dissipation of the gentiles (4:3-6). In particular, the parallel between Peter 4:1-2 and 3:14-15 is so striking that it is difficult to maintain that the primary meaning of “the One” in 4:1-2 is Christological.