The Calvinist ESV: 2 Peter 3:9

 I am breaking the "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)" post up into shorter segments so that each verse (or two) gets it own post.

#1:  Out of curiosity, I looked up another verse that's commonly used against Calvinism.  Here is the NIV translation of it: "... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9.  (Just because I quote the NIV doesn't mean I think it's the best one.  The NIV is somewhat Calvinistic too.  I am just using it for reference because many people know this one and because of its very different wording from the ESV.)

But the ESV ends it this way: "... not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."  Of the commonly-used "word-for-word" translations, the ESV is the only one that says "reach" instead of "come to."  Why is this?

This may seem like a little distinction, but it's not.  And I think it's another attempt to make the Bible more Calvinist.  And here's why:

Let's say I lived in Kansas, and I posted a note on my blog saying "I hope everyone comes to Kansas."  I would be expressing a desire that I want anyone and everyone to visit me in Kansas, no matter where they are or who they are or where they are going.  It's an open invitation to anyone who wants to respond.

But if I posted a note saying "I hope everyone reaches Kansas," it would clearly imply that I am talking only to and about those who are already headed to Kansas.  You can only "reach" something if you are already headed towards it, if it's the end goal you are striving for.  I clearly would not be telling people headed to Alaska or Canada or California that "I hope you reach Kansas."  That would be an irreconcilable contradiction.  It would be totally unrelated to and irrelevant for them.  If they are headed in a different direction, to a different destination, they will never reach Kansas no matter how long they travelled.  So obviously I am not talking to them.  I am simply saying that I hope those who are purposely headed to Kansas reach their destination.

This little change totally makes the verse more Calvinistic.

2 Peter 3:9, when interpreted accurately, is about God giving an "open invitation" to all people, saying that He wants anyone and everyone - no matter where they are in life or where they are headed or how they are living - to come to repentance and be saved, which would rightly imply that it's possible for anyone and everyone to be saved if they choose to repent.

But the subtle change the ESV gives it (and only the ESV) now makes it a statement only to those who are already headed toward repentance, which, according to Calvinism, are the "elect," those God predestined for repentance/salvation.  It's essentially saying "God doesn't want any of His elected people to perish, but He wants everyone who's predestined for repentance (the elect) to reach repentance."

Big difference!

Big, big difference!

(And interestingly enough, in none of the other verses where this Greek word is used do the ESV translators change it to "reach."  Only in this verse.  But this Greek word doesn't mean "reach."  It means "come, contain, go, have place, receive."  But it's never used as "reach" - as in "to arrive at a particular destination that you are striving for" - except in the ESV's 2 Peter 3:9, where it changes the verse from being an open invitation to all people to come to the point of repentance, no matter where they currently are ... to God seemingly expressing His desire that people who are headed for repentance "reach" repentance, which, in Calvinism, would only be the elect.)

A note about the ESV vs King James (I'll be posting this note at the end of every post in this series.  Just because.):

            If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, read these articles about the men who wrote the Greek texts that the ESV is based on: "Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs"  and  "Westcott and Hort and the Greek Text."  The ESV is based on the RSV, which is based on the Greek Texts of these two men (who, it sounds like, rejected the infallibility of Scripture, despised evangelicals, questioned Jesus's divinity and an eternal hell, did not believe that Genesis and the creation story were literal, affirmed Darwin and evolution, etc.), which is based on two corrupted manuscripts which differ from the majority of the more reliable manuscripts that the KJV is based on.  

            So when something says that the ESV has only made 6% changes, it means "from the RSV," meaning that it's 94% the same as the RSV it was based on, a translation which was based on two corrupted manuscripts that disagree with the majority of the manuscripts available.  It would be like if a journalist interviewed 100 people about an event ... and 95 of them said the exact same thing, but 5 told a different story ... and the journalist decided to side with the 5 and print their story as fact.  Raises some red flags, doesn't it?

            In the course of researching this issue, and after not knowing for decades what to think of the whole "which translation is most accurate" debate, I now side with the King James.  I mean, I have several other translations, and I think different ones are good for different reasons, such as readability, compare and contrast, to hear God's Word in a fresh way, etc.  But when having to decide which one is more reliable and accurate, especially considering the significant differences between them, I have to side with the KJV (not the New King James, just the King James).  And I've never been more sure of it than now, after all this research.