#12: 1 Peter 1:1-2 (NIV): "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood ..."
Let's see that in the KJV: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ ..."
And now in the ESV: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood ..."
(This will be a little confusing, so hang in there with me.)
Calvinists use this passage to prove their idea that God elects/predestines certain people to heaven and the rest to hell. But there are lots of factors at play in these verses - "elect/exiles, elect/chosen, God's foreknowledge, the work of the Spirit, obedience, etc." And it's critical to tie the right things with the right things, to know what goes with what. I'm gonna do my best to tell you how I think this passage should be understood.
Notice how the NIV, with the use of the comma, indicates that "elect" simply means "exiles." And these "exiles" were chosen (according to God's foreknowledge) for obedience to Jesus, and this obedience happens with the help of the Spirit. To me, this sounds like God foreknew who would believe in Him, and He has chosen to help believers be obedient to Him with the help of the Holy Spirit. It's about God choosing to help believers grow in Him, not about God choosing certain sinners to be saved, as Calvinists would say.
And the KJV doesn't say Peter is writing to the "elect," but to "strangers." And it clarifies that the verb "elect" ("chosen" in the NIV) is about being elected/chosen for "obedience." It ties "elect/chosen" with the actions of a person. Those foreknown by God (believers, the "strangers/exiles" in this case) are elected/chosen for obedience. If you are a true Spirit-filled believer, you are on a path that is destined to "obedience," where you will grow more and more obedient to God because the Holy Spirit helps you on your journey. Once again this is not about God "electing" certain sinners unto "salvation," but about God electing those whom He foreknows (as His children, as true believers) to be obedient to Jesus, through the help of the Spirit.
But the ESV ties "elect" with the people, mashing "elect" with "exiles" into "the elect exiles." This makes it sound like these exiles are part of "the elect group," those predestined for heaven. This fits with Calvinism's idea that God elects certain people for salvation. So instead of it being that believers are chosen to be obedient with the help of the Spirit, the ESV makes it that the people were elected (for salvation) through the work of the Spirit. Big difference!
And the ESV sounds like it's tying "God's foreknowledge" simply to the fact that they would be exiles. So it's not saying (like the other versions) that whomever God foreknows as believers are elected to obedience, but it's saying that God foreknew they would be exiles ... and that they are "elected exiles" ... and that it's the sanctification of the Holy Spirit that causes them to be obedient, which fits with their idea that people can only be obedient to God if the Holy Spirit regenerates them first. And this only happens to those God "elected," predestined to heaven.
So according to the ESV (going right along with Calvinism), God simply foreknew they would be exiles, and they are "elect" exiles, meaning they were "chosen for salvation" and saved through the work of the Holy Spirit who regenerates them so that they can believe in Him.
But biblically, predestination isn't about whether we were chosen for heaven or hell. It's about the path of a believer being "predestined." If you choose to put your faith in Jesus, you will receive the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will help you walk the path that is marked out for all believers, a path that is destined to lead us to be more like Christ, to be more obedient, to bring God glory, and to reach eternal glory in the end.
As I said, the KJV calls them "strangers," not "elect exiles." And according to Strong's concordance (with Vine's Expository Dictionary), this word "strangers" refers to those who are sojourning in a foreign land, away from their own people. And in this verse, it's referring, metaphorically, to those who are residents of heaven but who are sojourning on earth.
The ESV's use of "elect exiles" is deceptive because "elect" in this verse has nothing to do with being chosen or predestined for salvation. It's simply about them being "exiles," strangers wandering a strange land. And in the other translations, "elect" has to do with being elected/chosen to obedience, not to salvation.
Calvinists make so much of the word "elect," but it's not what they think it is. And this isn't a "predestined to heaven" passage at all.
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.
