Are Christians “Peculiar” or “Possessed”? (1 Peter 2:9)

In a conversation that I had recently with a friend, we stumbled across an excellent example of why we ought to use modern translations and not the old King James.  In this case, we were looking at 1 Peter 2:9, and we struck on a significant difference in translation between the King James and the ESV (which I typically use to preach and teach from).  I found that the results were both interesting and useful, dealing with the question: “are we a peculiar people” or “are we a people in Christ’s possession” as we go through life?


Initially, I compared the Greek of the Majority Text (from which the KJV is drawn) to the NA27 (from which modern translations are drawn) to see whether the difference in translation lay within a textual variant (please note that while there are variations between ancient manuscripts, they are largely minor linguistic nuances, and none of them place in question any orthodox doctrine that has been held by the church).   Yet, both Greek Texts are identical in terms of this verse.   Here is how the verse is literally translated (nuances of the words in parentheses):


“But you are an elect family, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession (could also be a people for preservation), in order that you might proclaim the moral excellence of the one who called (or summoned) you from darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9)


The language of “a people for possession” is the language that the King James Version translates into “a peculiar people.”  


To understand this, we must recognize that the word “peculiar” in English is a word that has changed its use in meaning over the last 400 years since the KJV was translated. Today, we use the word “peculiar” to refer to something that is a little odd or strange—unique or outside of the mainstream.  We might say something like, “This tastes peculiar,” to suggest that there is something disagreeable with the meal that has been set before us—in other words, it tastes odd.


But this is a more modern usage of the term and it was not what the KJV translators intended to communicate.  In the 17th century, the term “peculiar” referred to something that was the exclusive property of something or someone else.  When you understand this, the modern translation of “a people for possession” is synonymous with what the 17th century translators understood when they wrote, “a peculiar people.”  It is only in a modern sense that we have tended to misunderstand what the KJV was saying because we no longer typically understand the word “peculiar” in the same way.


We do still have remnants of this old usage in modern English when we say things like, “the antiseptic smell that is peculiar to hospitals” or “he speaks in an accent that is peculiar to the Cajun culture of New Orleans.”  Yet, even this use of the word “peculiar” seems to be falling away from common vernacular.


For what it is worth, the English word “peculiar” comes from the Latin, peculiaris, which means, “private property.”  This is exactly the sense that Peter is using the term—we are the private property of Him who has delivered us from darkness and into his marvelous light—we are Christ’s exclusive property—a people peculiar to Him.




(Note:  to its credit, the New King James Version translates this as, “his own special people,” which does a better job of capturing the idea in modern vernacular.  The point:  language changes as it is used one generation to the next and being bound to translations that use outdated language can easily lead to misunderstandings of the Biblical text.)

About preacherwin

A pastor, teacher, and a theologian concerned about the confused state of the church in America and elsewhere...Writing because the Christian should think Biblically.

Posted on July 23, 2008, in Pastoral Reflections and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Thanks for your post!
    It was very useful to me in sermon prep cos I was wondering about the same difference in translation and also the difference in meaning between the NT translation and the passage in Exodus 19 which Peter is quoting.


  2. I am glad that you found this useful. Language use changes from generation to generation and there are a lot of these little spots that are largely misunderstood simply by reading the King James and folks not understanding the change in language.




  3. Excellent work. My thanks!


  4. I am glad that this proved useful. Blessings,



  5. charles Hughes

    Really , I found your ad for drugs more peculiar then anything else. God tells us to rightly divide the truth and if you can’t read the king James and study and instead use a corrupt word maybe we should give up the drugs.


    • Charles,

      I must confess that I very nearly rejected your little rant as I do with most nonsensical insults, but as I thought about your statement, I felt like there was an issue worth bringing to the table.

      First, to any out there who prefer the KJV (or any of its various revisions), I have no objection to you using it, and honestly, I am a product of my upbringing in that passages like the 23rd Psalm and the Lord’s Prayer don’t sound quite right outside of KJV language as that is what I memorized as a kid.

      Yet, as much as you, Charles, might object, the English language has changed a great deal in the past 400 years (surprise, surprise!) and much of the KJV language is opaque to those who are unaccustomed to reading it. You might suggest (as you imply in your little rant) that it would behoove every decent Christian to learn the King James language so they can study the Bible. Um, I am sorry, I will prefer the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts … those are the ones that are inspired, not the KJV translators (sorry to burst your bubble).

      The point that I wanted to bring up, though, was that the logic you are using (that the KJV of the Bible is the only version of the Bible that can be profitably used whether you understand it or not) is the same logic that the Roman Catholic church used with respect to the Latin Vulgate. In fact, one of the reasons that the KJV Bible was translated was to give the people a copy of the Bible in their native language … a principle, it seems, that you would now refuse to others.

      Now, if you, Charles, would like to have a productive dialogue on the ways in which the English language has changed over the past 4 centuries, then I invite your comments. Or, if you would like to have a dialogue on the pros and cons of the Majority Text over the Modern approach to weighting more ancient texts more heavily, then again, I invite your dialogue. If you just wish to rant, please find another venue for doing so.

      May God bless you,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: