Another Look at the Angels’ Announcement

The first year I had this blog (2017), I wrote a post trying to discern the proper rendering of Luke 2:14. Almost seven years and one Master’s degree later, and I think it’s time to reassess this question. The text in question reads:

This should be contrasted with the King James Version, which reads:

You will notice that the first line of both my translation and the KJV reads identically. The second line in the Greek is identical as well (though the Textus Receptus doesn’t include accent marks); my translation is different because I chose to translate it in English word order (subject first) rather than following the Greek word order (like the KJV). The question this post seeks to address is in the third line:

Are good will and peace directed at mankind in general, like the KJV seems to imply, or does peace only exist with a certain kind of person?

I posted this question on Threads recently, and the poll went back and forth for a while, but ultimately the KJV lost (check out the results and follow me here). Do those statistics (admittedly only 59% of 74 votes) match the textual data?

In order to answer these questions, we will look at two different types of evidence: manuscripts themselves and the surrounding context. The post will conclude with some theological implications.

Manuscript Evidence¹

The majority of manuscripts read the same as the Textus Receptus. But when it comes to weighing manuscript evidence, it is not enough to count manuscripts for one view or another; rather attention must be paid to the date of the manuscripts, the location where the manuscripts were discovered, and the quality of the manuscripts (general tendencies throughout the whole manuscript or tendencies within the family of manuscripts [a manuscript’s parent is the manuscript from which it was copied]).²

In the case of Luke 2:14, several important manuscripts actually betray that they were changed at a later time to read in line with the Textus Receptus.³ But this change can best be explained as trying to make the text easier to read.⁴ However, one is much more likely to make a text easier to read than more difficult to read, so this is a point against the Textus Receptus rendering.

The majority of Lectionaries (manuscripts containing texts organized around church calendar readings) contribute to the Textus Receptus reading. This goes back to the fact that the Textus Receptus represents the easier reading in this case, which probably made its way into the lectionaries because it would be more accessible to the listeners in the pews.

It was likely not changed for doctrinal reasons (see further under Theological Implications). Both readings are witnessed in the writings of Origen (mid-3rd century).⁵

At least one Syriac version adds a second-person pronoun after ευδοκια, rendering the phrase, “your good will to men.” This text is an edit to the reading that contributed to the Textus Receptus reading, and it does not add much weight to that reading, except to demonstrate that the text here needed clarification.

Another variant adds the word και (“and”) before the phrase in question. The Textus Receptus reading is found after the και, which is another strike against this reading. The και is added to indicate that another independent phrase is being introduced. But what we have here is not actually three phrases–glory, peace, and good will–but two: glory and peace.⁶ There is no need for a second και, which functions to break the verse into three clauses. If it was meant to be three clauses, there would likely be more manuscript evidence for this reading than there is.

The Sahidic translation adds the third-person singular possessive pronoun to “good will”: “And peace upon earth among men of his desire [pleasure].”⁷ This edit makes sense of the more difficult text without simply leading to the Textus Receptus reading. It understands and represents the reality that “[Luke 1–2 contains] numerous Semitic expressions, including the expression ‘among men with whom he is pleased’.”⁸

For all of these reasons, it seems best to prefer NA28 over the Textus Receptus. The peace on earth is within people of good will. But who are these people? And what does the context surrounding Luke 2:14 contribute to the argument?

Surrounding Context

Luke 2:10–14 reads:

And the angel said to the shepherds, “Do not fear, for behold I am bringing you all good news of great joy, which will be to all the people: a savior has been born to you all today in the city of David, who is Christ [and] Lord. And this sign is for you all: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a feeding trough.”

And suddenly a multitude of the heavenly host was with the angel, praising God and saying:

“Glory to God in the highest,
and peace upon earth
to people of good will.”

My translation, based on NA28

If verse 14–as the NA28 text seems to imply–is saying that God’s peace only comes to people of good will, then is there a contradiction between verse 10 (all people) and verse 14 (people of good will)?

No.

First, this text does not promise “all people” peace on earth, but “good news of great joy.” Second, Luke 2:10’s use of “people” is actually a different Greek word than the word used for “people” in Luke 2:14. In Luke 2:10, the word is λαός (laos), and in Luke 2:14, it is ἄνθρωπος (anthropos). The latter is the general word for humankind, whereas the prior is used more to describe a specific group of people.⁹ In this case, especially given 2:11’s reference to “Christ,” “Lord,” and “City of David,” the λαός in view in 2:10 is the entire nation of Israel. The birth of their Messiah should have been a reason for the whole nation to rejoice.

Luke’s use of ἄνθρωπος in 2:14 means that the effects of Jesus’ birth are already spreading outward, beyond the borders of Israel. It will not only benefit the Jewish people, but humanity in general.

But then that extra word gets added on. It’s not simply “peace on earth to people,” but “to people of good will.”

In other words, just like Israel was God’s chosen people in the Old Testament (see Isaiah 44:1), so God has a chosen people in the New Testament, and it is wider than the boundaries of national Israel.

The context also includes the next chapter. In Luke 3:22, after Jesus comes up from the waters of baptism, a voice comes out of the sky, declaring,

“You are my beloved son.
With you I am well pleased (εὐδοκέω).”

My translation, based on NA28

Jesus is the person of God’s good will par excellence. He is ultimate peace on earth.

Theological Implications

I would like to close out this post by drawing several implications of this discussion. These relate to how we understand Luke 2:14 itself, how we understand the Bible as a whole, and how we as Christians should live, especially during Christmas time.

For Luke 2:14

The text makes it plain that peace on earth is only present with certain people. Thus begins the Calvinist-Arminian debate.

However, like most debates, the truth is usually between the two extremes (in this case closer to the Arminianism position¹⁰). Since we do not have any Greek manuscripts that read “his good will”–even though this might be the intended understanding–we must not stake our position on this possibility. Rather, we must look at Jesus–the one who is clearly a person of good will (Luke 3:22)–and remember that if God chooses specific people for salvation, Calvinistically, we have absolutely no way of knowing who they are.¹¹ But we do know Jesus. We know his character. We know how he lived his life. And since he was well-pleasing to God, he was also where peace on earth was found.

If we want to know peace on earth, we must know him. Claiming Calvinistic–or Arminian–beliefs alone does not equate to knowing him. “Did I not regularly declare that God chooses people for salvation before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1) on my Facebook page?” Jesus will declare, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). This is not the point of Christianity. Jesus was peace on earth; his followers also should be promoting peace on earth.

Christians are those who have been granted peace from their Savior; we can’t pat ourselves on the back, but we must work at spreading this peace so others can experience it too. Whether you identify as a Calvinist or not, there is little more despicable than a Christian who takes pride in their salvation and looks down on other “sinners.” Paul would be appalled (Romans 9:1–3).

The angels essentially announced to the shepherds: “If you want to know peace on earth, find yourself a Christian.”

How convicting this should be!

For the Bible as a whole

Textual variants are fun. It’s a detective puzzle to try to determine what the original manuscripts said. And the fact is that God allowed for textual variants to keep us humble. They remind us that the Bible isn’t God. The Word of God is useful for so much and it is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) and infallible (1 Peter 1:25) but no version we have today is perfect.¹² Rather than idolizing the Bible–the variations in manuscripts should remind us that all the manuscripts, and all the various translations we have access to today exist to help us know God.

We can’t replace a relationship with God with slavish reading–or even deep study–of the Bible. The Bible is where God reveals himself; he wants to master us, even as we try to master his Word.

When was the last time the Bible actually led you to change something in your life?

For Christmas

This verse–understood properly–makes it clear that Christians are the ones who experience peace on earth. While nonbelievers might experience peace to a greater or lesser degree at times, Christians are the ones in whom peace is found (Galatians 5:22 describes the fruit of the Spirit). Why do we get so nasty during Christmas?

• We argue about how its unChristian to say “Happy holidays!”
• We argue about how calling it Xmas is a betrayal of Christ.
• We argue about Christmas Trees, Santa Clause, and Die Hard.
• We might even be inclined to argue about the theology put forward in this post.

There’s a place for pleasant and friendly debate (please comment below with your thoughts!), but the world is watching, and the world longs for peace. Let’s do better at spreading peace and cheer this Christmas, so that others might be more inclined to consider our blessed Savior.

In this with you.

Thanks for reading.

---

Notes and References

1. The manuscript evidence described throughout this section is pulled from both the NA28 and UBS5 apparati. ↩︎
2. See Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↩︎
3. These manuscripts are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (both from the 4th century). ↩︎
4. “The genitive case εὐδοκίας is the more difficult reading and is supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses. The rise of the nominative (subject) case reading εὐδοκία can be explained either as an attempt to improve the sense or as an oversight in copying (at the end of a line εὐδοκίας would differ from εὐδοκία only by the presence of the smallest possible sigma in a lunar shape: εὐδοκία^c” (Roger L. Omanson and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006], 111). ↩︎
5. While textual variants sometimes betray doctrinal motivations (see Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 265–268), the doctrine this text alludes to would not be argued until Augustine’s day, and even more vigorously during the Reformation. The fact that Origen represents both readings–130 years before Augustine–implies that this was not changed for doctrinal reasons. ↩︎
6. Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 328. ↩︎
7. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Society, 1994), 111 n. 2. Emphasis added. ↩︎
8. Omanson and Metzger, Textual Guide, 111. ↩︎
9. “In a large majority of instances, λαός in the LXX corresponds closely to Eng. people when this term refers to a large number of human beings united by their ethnic, cultural, and/or political identity, thus often meaning ‘nation'” (Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014], 3:89). ↩︎
10. The truly opposite extreme of Calvinism is Pelagianism, which should not be slanderously applied to Arminianism. ↩︎
11. This is where this variant came from. Since Calvinists can’t know who God chose, they must offer the gospel to all. The universalistic understanding found in the Textus Receptus of Luke 2:14 is entirely in line with the universalistic offer of salvation that even Calvinists must agree with in order to be even the least bit orthodox. ↩︎
12. Some would add inerrant to “inspired and infallible,” and that is fine and dandy. I will eagerly sign a document that says I ascribe to the Bible’s inerrancy, but rather than pretending variants and transcription “errors” don’t exist, I would emphasize that the Bible does not error in its goal of witnessing to the person and work of Jesus Christ–and this is true regardless of which translation one uses. ↩︎

---