inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Pet. 1:4)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (2 Peter 1:4)

Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Peter 1:4:

  • Uma: “From the bigness of his life and the goodness of his heart, he gave us blessings that are so very good [lit., that are no kidding their goodness], and very big that he had promised to us. His purpose in giving you those blessings is so that you can take-after [i.e., imitate] God’s character, and not any longer follow evil desires. Those evil desires destroy the lives of people who do not know God.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Because-of/through the power of God he has given to us (incl.) what he had promised us (incl.), his very good and valuable promises. Because of these his promises we (incl.) ought no longer to indulge the greedy-desires of the world which can destroy us (incl.), and our (incl.) customs can now resemble God’s customs.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “This is His fulfillment of His promise that He would bless us with very great and precious things. The reason He promised this is so that our behaviour might imitate the behaviour of God and that we might avoid here on the earth fulfilling our evil desires, for these can destroy us.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because of this greatness and goodness of his, there is that which he has given to us who have escaped/evaded the destruction of body and mind that results from the evil desires of people in this world. What he has given us, it is the very-valuable and very-important (things) that he has promised so that through these, we will join-in-experiencing his godhood.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Through these, this glory and supernatural-power of his, he gave us some very-far-from-ordinary promises, so that our nature/ways can-become-like his nature/ways which are really good. For we have escaped-the-clutches of our slavery to indulging the evil desires we grew-up-with/were-born-to, which is what leads a person to a lifestyle which will be destroyed.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Therefore supremely wonderful is the word that is promised about what is to be given to us. Now it comes to us that we will live as God lives. No more will we want to do the evil that is here on earth.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

pronoun for "God"

God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).

Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.

In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.

While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff.) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”

In Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of systems of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):

In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.

Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”

In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)

Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”

In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff.)

In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)

The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.

Some Protestant English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).

See also this chapter in the World Atlas of Language Structures on different approaches to personal pronouns.

Translation: Chinese

在现代汉语中,第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的(tā),但是写法并不一样,取决于性别以及是否有生命,即男性为“他”,女性为“她”,动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”(在香港和台湾的汉语使用,动物则为“牠”)。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别(男人、女人、动物、无生命事物),而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。

到1930年为止,基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本,当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”,偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā,而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物,因此他们明白这个字指出,三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分,而单单是上帝。

然而,最重要的新教圣经译本(1919年的《和合本》)和天主教圣经译本(1968年的《思高圣经》)都没有采用“祂”;虽然如此,许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字,另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。(资料来源:Zetzsche)

《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”;这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成,整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯(Kramers)指出:“‘他’的这种新写法(即‘祂’)产生了一个小问题,就是在指称耶稣的时候,是否一律使用这个敬语代词?《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是,在称呼耶稣这个人的时候,用一般的‘他’,而在称呼耶稣神性的时候,特别是升天之后的耶稣,则用尊称‘祂’。”

Translator: Simon Wong

Translation commentary on 2 Peter 1:4

The expression by which (Good News Translation “In this way”) may refer to what comes immediately before, in which case it is through God’s glory and goodness that we receive God’s promises. More likely, however, by which refers to all of verse 3, especially the first part. What Peter is saying then is that, when Christ (or God) gives us all that we need to live a godly life, he also gives to us those blessings that he has promised. Another way of saying by which, then, is “Because of this…” or “Because of these things….”

For he has granted see 1.3. In both instances the perfect tense is used, indicating that the promises have already been given and continue to be effective even into the unknown future. He most probably refers to God, and this can be made clear in the translation, especially if in verse 3 translators have identified “him” in the final clause as Jesus.

The word for promises is used only here in the New Testament and is usually understood in one of two ways: it can refer to the things promised, that is, the content of these promises (for example, “blessings,” or Good News Translation “gifts”), or it can refer to promises for the future that are mentioned in the latter part of the letter, such as the promise of a new heaven and a new earth (3.4, 9, 13, and other verses). As we shall see, a decision on which meaning to take depends somewhat on how the second part of verse 4 is interpreted.

The gifts are described as precious and very great. Precious translates a Greek word that refers to high honorable status when used of people, and to having considerable worth or value when used of things. In the present case precious can therefore be rendered as “valuable,” or even “invaluable” or “priceless” (that is, it is impossible to estimate its worth). The Greek word translated very great puts emphasis on importance, so it may be translated “very important” or even “extremely important.” These two attributes taken together stress the extreme significance and value of the gifts.

Through these can mean “by means of God’s blessings” (as in Good News Translation “by means of these gifts”) or “by means of God’s promises,” that is, by receiving the blessings that come as a result of the fulfillment of God’s promises. It is more likely, though, that “gifts” are meant here. Therefore another possible rendering is “by using these gifts.” This translation helps to avoid the impression that the “gifts” caused the escape. Rather, they are the means used to escape.

The result of all this is that the believers escape from the corruption that is in the world and become partakers of the divine nature. The word for escape is used only in this letter in the New Testament (see also 2.18, 20). The Greek form (aorist participle) clearly indicates that escaping from corruption comes before participating in the divine nature. Escape here does not mean “run away from” or “flee” but puts the main focus on being free or being delivered from something, which in this case is the corruption that is in the world. So the phrase through these you may escape from may be rendered “through these gifts you may be free from,” or even “that these gifts may help you to avoid,” or “that these things (or, blessings) that God has given to you may help you to avoid.”

Corruption literally refers to the decomposition of a dead body after it is buried; this has led many scholars to understand it primarily in a physical sense, with the stress being on the fact that life here on earth is temporary and not permanent. However, there are others who understand the term to include an ethical aspect as well, referring to moral deterioration and the resulting loss of character and immortality.

This corruption is described as being in the world, which can be understood simply as the created order, which is temporary and exposed to decay, or it can be understood as an evil force opposed to God and therefore subject to God’s judgment. Furthermore this corruption is related to or caused by passion. The Greek word used here means generally “desire” but in a negative sense means “sinful desire,” “evil desire,” “lust” (Good News Translation), that is, desire to do evil or sinful things, desire for things that are against the will of God. While Greek concepts are used here, particularly the opposition between the material and the spiritual, yet Greek thought is also modified in the sense that corruption is not simply a natural result of the physical world but is caused by sinful and evil desire.

How are these three words (corruption, world, passion) related to one another? One possibility is simply to follow the ordering of the Greek, in which case corruption is located in the world and is caused by passion (as in Revised Standard Version, and note Phillips “to escape the inevitable disintegration that lust produces in the world”). Another way is to understand corruption as a quality of passion, hence, evil desires that destroy, as in Good News Translation “destructive lust that is in the world.” Still another way is to understand passion as a quality of the world (as in Jerusalem Bible “to escape corruption in a world that is sunk in vice”). All of these are possible interpretations of the Greek text, although the first two are preferred by the majority of commentaries and modern translations. Therefore, keeping in mind these two interpretations, the clause you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion may be rendered in many languages as “you may escape from the evil desires (or, lusts) in the world that destroy people” or “the evil desires (or, lusts) in the world that destroy people will not corrupt you.”

Having escaped from corruption, the believers can now become partakers of the divine nature, which can be understood in two ways: being given some characteristics that are reserved for the divine, in this case immortality and incorruptibility, and sharing in the life and nature of God himself (as in Phillips “to share God’s essential nature,” and New English Bible “to share in the very being of God”). We may also render this phrase as “to share in God’s own nature,” “become like God,” “share in God’s heart.”

Many commentators note here the use of Greek concepts. The word for divine (see also 1.3) is used in only one other place in the New Testament, and that is in Acts 17.29, as part of Paul’s speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus, and in which he aptly uses a term that is popularly known, especially among the educated Greeks (Revised Standard Version “a [divine] representation”). The Greeks believed that human beings had in themselves a part of the divine nature which, however, was obscured by the material and physical elements. It was by escaping from the material world that they would come to share fully in the very nature of the gods. Salvation therefore was escape from the bondage of the physical and material. Peter uses what is popular in Greek thought, but he modifies it in such a way that it becomes compatible with Christian thought. He makes it clear that people become partakers of the divine nature, not because they already have it, or because of their own efforts, but primarily because of God’s grace and goodness; it is God and God alone who makes this possible.

We should note that there is a change here from the first person plural (us) to the second person plural (you). From this point on until verse 15, Peter addresses his readers directly. This change of pronouns is also found in verses 16-21, where the first person plural pronoun is used in verses 16-19a, and the second person from verse 19b to the end of the chapter.

A further question to be resolved in this verse is when all of this takes place. When will believers escape from corruption and decay and share in the divine nature? Firstly, this may be understood as a present reality, in which case escape from corruption and sharing in the divine nature are related to the Christian experience of conversion and baptism. Secondly, this may be understood as referring to the last days, in which case escape from corruption and sharing in the divine nature are related to the Christian experience at the end of time. The highly ethical nature of the immediately following verses (verses 5-15) favors the first alternative, while the many other references to the end of all things in the letter itself favor the second. At any rate, the first alternative goes well with the understanding that the promises are the blessings and gifts that are contained in it; while the second possibility goes well with the understanding that the promises are for the future, and their fulfillment will be at the end of the age. We propose that the former is the most likely interpretation.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Through all this God has given us the very great and precious gifts that he promised. By using these gifts we can escape from the evil desires in the world that destroy people, and may come to have a part in God’s own nature.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .