Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

In 1 Peter 2:22, Bercot says the Masoretic reading (“no violence”) doesn’t carry the same messianic force as the Septuagint (“no iniquity/sin”). What does this example reveal about how God may have intended messianic prophecy to function for the Church, and how does it confront modern assumptions that “minor wording differences don’t matter”?

Another way to ask: If “no sin” (Septuagint) points to the Messiah more clearly than “no violence” (Masoretic) in 1 Peter 2:22, what does that suggest about how prophecy was meant to help the Church? How does it challenge the idea that small wording differences don’t matter?

Direct Answer Bercot treats messianic prophecy as meant to give clear, Christ-specific claims the Church can preach—like Jesus’ sinlessness—so wording differences are not “minor” when they change that clarity. The example confronts the assumption that small textual shifts never affect doctrine.

Support from Transcript:

1 Peter 2:22 says of Jesus: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”
Masoretic/English Isa 53:9 reads, “he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth,” which Bercot says is a “huge difference between doing no violence and doing no sin.”
He stresses the uniqueness: “a lot of people have done no violence, but nobody can say they did no sin except one man, Jesus Christ.”
The Septuagint renders it, “He practiced no iniquity…nor craft or guile,” matching Peter’s messianic emphasis.
Bercot concludes that “without the Septuagint, a very important messianic prophecy is suddenly thrown out,” showing that certain “wording differences” directly bear on Christian proclamation.

Discussion Follow-ups How many other “small” Old Testament wording differences might affect how confidently we preach Christ from prophecy?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10