1 Peter 2:3 (Refuting Countess' Accusations Against the NWT)

The following is a reply to a major accusation made by Robert H. Countess in his book defaming the Bible translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses: "The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament - A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [NWT]," Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982 (2nd ed. 1987).

Countess attacks the NWT's usage of "Jehovah" in many places in the New Testament (NT). But more important to him is the NWT's "dishonest" non-usage of "Jehovah" in certain places in the NT! His three primary targets (1 Pet. 2:3 [pp. 34-35]; 1 Pet. 3:15a [pp. 36-37]; and Zech. 12:10/John 19:37 [pp. 37-38]) were chosen by him simply because the NWT translates these three scriptures in a way that denies some standard trinitarian "proofs" that Jesus is Jehovah. As he admits on p. 33, this is "The Real Issue: The Identification of Jesus with Jehovah"!

1 Peter 2:3

(:3) “For you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. (:4) Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious” - 1 Peter 2:3, 4, RSV.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good" - Ps. 34:8 (33:8), The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1980 ed.

The question is not so much "was the name `Jehovah' (rather than "Lord") used at Ps. 34:8 in the original Septuagint (LXX)?" (It probably was.) The real question is: "Was Peter actually quoting Ps. 34:8 and applying `Jehovah' in it directly to Jesus?" Mr. Countess contends that he was. For evidence he points to the context: 1 Pet. 2:4 - "As you come to him, the living Stone - rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him" - NIV. [But analyze this statement, especially the contrast between "him" and "God."] And so he claims the NWT was very dishonest in not using "Jehovah" in place of "the Lord" at 1 Pet. 2:3 since it claims to use "Jehovah" in the NT when the inspired NT writer is actually quoting an OT text which originally used "Jehovah" (e.g., Jn 1:23; Acts 2:34; Acts 4:25, 26).

So, (1) if "him" in 1 Pet. 2:4 were intended to refer back to "the Lord" in 1 Pet. 2:3, and (2) if 1 Pet. 2:3 were intended to quote (or directly refer to) Ps. 34:8 which used `Jehovah,' then Mr. Countess' evidence would appear valid and significant and the NWT would appear to be wrong in not using "Jehovah" at 1 Peter 2:3 (and Jesus would appear to be Jehovah).

However, when even many respected trinitarian scholars indicate otherwise, we must strongly question the validity of such `evidence'!

For example, there is a complete break (including double space and new subheading titles) between 1 Pet. 2:3 and 1 Pet. 2:4 in some editions of certain respected, highly trinitarian Bibles which use subdivisions and subheadings. (See, for example, those editions of NIV, RSV, and NASB which use subheadings. Also see the NIVSB.) This indicates, of course, that even trinitarian scholars recognize that there is not necessarily a connection between the "him" in the new section (which begins with 1 Pet. 2:4) and the "Lord" in the preceding section (which ends with 1 Pet. 2:3). In other words, even if 1 Pet. 2:3 were intended by Peter to be referring to Jehovah, 1 Pet. 2:4 would not also have to do likewise.

Even noted trinitarian scholar F. J. A Hort (who apparently does refer 1 Pet. 2:3 to Ps. 34:8) does not accept the connection of "him" in 1 Pet. 2:4 with the "Lord" of 1 Pet. 2:3 as Mr. Countess wishes:

"In the Psalm [34:8] ó kurios stands for Jehovah, as it very often does, the LXX inserting and omitting the article with kurios on no apparent principal. On the other hand the next verse [1 Pet. 2:4] shews St Peter to have used ó kurios in its commonest though not universal N.T. sense, of Christ. It would be rash however to conclude that he meant to identify Jehovah with Christ. No such identification can be clearly made out in the N.T. St Peter is not here making a formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and applying it in his own manner." - from p. 104, The First Epistle of Peter as quoted in the footnote for 1 Pet. 2:3 in the NWT Reference Bible, 1984.

There are a number of respected trinitarian translators who have indicated that 1 Peter 2:3 does not refer to Ps 34:8 nor intend that "Jehovah" was meant by Peter to be understood there. (Also the UBS' NT text, 3rd ed., 1975, which uses bold type to indicate a quote from the OT, does not use bold type for 1 Pet. 2:3.)

For example, my KJV reference Bible by Collins Press, 1955, does not even refer 1 Pet. 2:3 to Ps. 34:8 but only to Heb. 6:5. (Such reference listings are not limited to identifying quotations but often merely identify verses with similar terms or concepts. Even the 1951 NWT itself referred 1 Pet. 2:3 to Ps. 34:8 because of a similarity of terms, but obviously did not consider it a quote of that scripture.) This is a significant revelation in this trinitarian-published Bible which lists other clearer OT references and quotes such as: Is. 40:8 (for 1 Pet. 1:25); Is. 66:21 (for 1 Pet. 2:5); Is. 8:14 (1 Pet. 2:8); Deut. 10:15 and Ex. 19:5, 6 (1 Pet. 2:9); etc. Clearly the editors of this trinitarian publication don't believe Peter was necessarily referring to the "Jehovah" of Ps. 34:8 let alone actually quoting from it. So why does Mr. Countess accuse the non-trinitarian translators of the NWT of being so dishonest for believing the very same thing?

The trinitarian NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); REB; JB; NJB; MLB; and translations by James Moffatt; and William F. Beck (Lutheran) use quotation marks (italic letters in NKJV, NJB, JB, Moffatt, and Beck; and all capital letters in NASB) in the NT to show what their trinitarian translators and editors considered to be a quote from the OT.

For example, the last part of 1 Pet. 5:5 in the NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NIV; Moffatt; NASB; JB; NJB; REB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); and Beck is set off by quotation marks (italics in NKJV, Moffatt, JB; NJB; and Beck; all capitals in NASB) to show that their trinitarian translators and editors considered it to be a quote of Prov. 3:34, Septuagint. (In spite of the different wording in the Septuagint: `Lord' [or `Jehovah'] instead of `God' and didosi instead of didosin.) So if 1 Pet. 5:5 had used "Lord" and Prov. 3:34 had used "Jehovah," then the NWT would have translated "Jehovah" in place of "Lord" at 1 Pet. 5:5. And it might have properly been considered dishonest for not doing so.

But it is not always so clear whether a statement by a NT writer is actually a quote from the OT or not! For example, notice how many of these trinitarian translations agree that 1 Pet. 3:14 ends with a quote from Is. 8:12: NKJV; NIV; NASB; JB; NJB; Beck; NAB (1970); and Moffatt. Yes, RSV; NRSV; NAB (1991); REB; and MLB do not believe Peter was quoting from the OT at 1 Pet. 3:14! So there is strong disagreement here even among respected trinitarian scholars. And surely no honest Bible scholar would blame the NWT for also not considering it to be a quote from Is. 8:12 or not changing "Lord" to "Jehovah" (if "Lord" had actually appeared there) at that scripture.

But more important, how did these same trinitarian scholars treat the verse in question (1 Pet. 2:3) which Countess insists is a quote from the OT? Well, NKJV; RSV; NRSV; REB; NASB; NIV; NAB (1970); Moffatt; NAB (1991); and MLB do not indicate that 1 Pet. 2:3 is a quote from the OT!

Only JB; NJB; and Beck indicate the belief that Peter was quoting from the OT in this scripture! If so many trinitarian scholars do not believe that Peter was quoting "Lord" (or "Jehovah") from the OT, how is it so "dishonest" for the scholars who translated the NWT to do the same?

Let's also consider the Hebrew translations of the NT by highly trinitarian scholars (noted Lutheran scholar Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, London, 1981, and the trinitarian translators and publishers of the United Bible Societies' Hebrew New Testament, 1983). At 1 Peter 1:25 both translations have rendered the "Lord" (kurios) of the NT Greek text into the Hebrew "Jehovah" (Yhwh in Hebrew), not "Lord" (adon)!

(All the above trinitarian Bibles - NKJV; RSV; NIV; NASB, etc. - agree that 1 Pet. 1:25 truly is a quote from Is. 40:8 where "Jehovah" was used in the original manuscripts. The NKJV, which actually renders "Jehovah" from OT quotes in the NT as "LORD," not "Lord," renders this as "But the word of the LORD endures forever." )

But at the verse in question, 1 Pet. 2:3, both Hebrew New Testaments have rendered the "Lord" of NT Greek as adon ("Lord") rather than the name of God, Yhwh! Clearly, these highly respected trinitarian scholars did not believe 1 Pet. 2:3 was a quote from the OT (as they did for 1 Pet. 1:25) nor that "Jehovah" was intended there!

[2 Thess. 1:9 is also put in this category by Jason DeBuhn in his generally excellent Truth in Translation, p. 175, University Press of America, 2003.] *

* BeDuhn claims that 2 Thess 1:9 is a quote from Isaiah 2:21.

2 Thess 1:9 - "These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the lord and from the glory of his strength" – NWT.

2 Thess. 1:9 - ... apo proswpou tou kuriou kai apo thV doxhV thV iscuoV autou

Is. 2:21 - ….Before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty, When He arises to make the earth tremble. – NASB.

Is. 2:21 - … apo proswpou tou fobou kuriou kai apo thV dochV thV iscuoV autou .... Septuagint.

There are a number of respected trinitarian translators who have indicated that 2 Thess 1:9 does not quote from Is. 2:21 nor intend that "Jehovah" was meant by Paul to be understood there. (Also the UBS' NT text, 3rd ed., 1975, which uses bold type to indicate a quote from the OT, does not use bold type for 2 Thess 1:9.)

2 Thess 1:9 is not indicated as a quote from the OT in NASB; NRSV; RSV; ASV; NAB (`70); NAB (`91); MLB; NIV; NKJV; AT (Smith – Goodspeed); etc.

Let's also consider the Hebrew translations of the NT by highly trinitarian scholars (noted Lutheran scholar Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, London, 1981, and the trinitarian translators and publishers of the United Bible Societies' Hebrew New Testament, 1983). At 1 Pet. 1:25 both translations have rendered the "Lord" (kurios) of the NT Greek text into the Hebrew "Jehovah" (Yhwh in Hebrew), not "Lord" (adon)!

(All the above trinitarian Bibles - NKJV; RSV; NIV; NASB, etc. - agree that 1 Pet. 1:25, for example, truly is a quote from Is. 40:8 where "Jehovah" was used in the original manuscripts. The NKJV, which actually renders "Jehovah" from OT quotes in the NT as "LORD," not "Lord," renders this as "But the word of the LORD endures forever.'" And the NWT renders it as "…. but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.'")

But at the verse in question, 2 Thess 1:9, both Hebrew New Testaments have rendered the "Lord" of NT Greek as ha adon ("the Lord") rather than the name of God, Yhwh! Clearly, these highly respected trinitarian scholars did not believe 2 Thess 1:9 was a quote from the OT (as they did for 1 Pet. 1:25) nor that "Jehovah" was intended there!

Furthermore, the NKJV, which uses LORD when quoting portions of the OT which include God's name, has at 2 Thess 1:9, "…. From the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." And the NWT also has "from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength."

Also see:
1 Peter 2:3 ("Lord") (INDNWT)