The Calvinist ESV: 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and Galatians 3:26

 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.

#3:  Most versions state 2 Thessalonians 2:13 like the NIV does: "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."

But the ESV is one of the very few translations that adds a comma in a very strategic place: "... because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

This is major!  It would be like the difference between "I chose you to be the first to see the Grand Canyon from my new helicopter" and "I chose you to be the first to see the Grand Canyon, from my new helicopter."

In the first one, I chose you to be the first to get a ride in my new helicopter to see the Grand Canyon, but not necessarily to be the first to see the Grand Canyon.  Just to see it from my new helicopter.  But in the second, I chose you to be the first to see the Grand Canyon, and you will see it from my new helicopter.

My husband has a t-shirt which says "Let's eat kids" followed by "Let's eat, kids," and then comes the punchline: "Punctuation saves lives."

That tiny, little comma makes a huge difference, just as it does in 2 Thessalonians 2:13.  In the "no comma" version (most translations) it means something like "God chose you to be the first to get salvation through the Spirit and belief in truth."  Because before Jesus, they didn't have the option of believing in Jesus or of having the Holy Spirit.  They had to maintain their salvation, their devotion to God, by following the Law.  But when Jesus came, He did away with the Law (fulfilling its requirements), and so now we are saved by belief in Him and through the work of the Spirit (which is available to any and all who will choose to repent and believe in Jesus).  And that generation, the one Paul is writing to, is the first generation to be able to experience salvation through belief and the Holy Spirit, making them the "firstfruits" of the "age of grace."

But the ESV translation essentially changes it from "God chose you to be saved through the Spirit and belief" to "God chose you to be saved" with the additional tidbit that you'll be saved through the Spirit and belief.

This is far different than the first one.

The first one is about God choosing which method of salvation the generation gets, and the second one is about God choosing who gets saved.  Big, big difference!  No wonder the Calvinist ESV puts in the comma, turning it into support for their theological view that "God chose who gets saved and who doesn't."

[And to be even more accurate, the word “saved” in this verse - according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible - isn’t even about eternal salvation, heaven and hell.  It’s about God promising to save true believers from the wrath He will pour out on the ungodly at the end of this age.  This isn’t a Calvinist “predestined for heaven” verse at all.  It’s about God choosing to switch the method of salvation at that time to faith in Jesus specifically, and it’s about God choosing to spare true believers from His end times wrath.  Big difference!]

[Along similar lines is Galatians 3:26.  Most versions say something like the KJV (King James Version, also referred to as KJB, King James Bible): "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."  But the ESV flips it and adds a comma: "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith."  The KJV (and most others) uses the phrase "faith in Christ Jesus," saying that we become children of God by putting our faith in Jesus, which implies that anyone and everyone can put their faith in Jesus and that all who do will become children of God.  

But the ESV changes the order.  In the ESV, it's not "faith in Jesus" that makes them a child of God (that saves them); it's "[being] in Christ Jesus" that makes them a child of God (that saves them).  And in Calvinism, those who are "in Christ" - those chosen to be in Christ before time began - are the elect, and so the elect (and only the elect) can and will become children of God, when God gives them the faith to believe.  

Listen to the difference here: "You win the race by crossing the finish line in first place" versus "You in first place win the race, when you cross the finish line."  One opens the option of winning up to everyone, and the other is simply saying that the one who took first place and won the race did it when they crossed the finish line.  The second one is not a message for everyone and anyone, telling them how they can win the race, but it's a message to and about the one who already won the race and how they got there.  And all it took was a little flip of the wording.]

A note about the ESV vs King James:

            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 Genesis and the creation story was 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 like those above, 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.