Showing posts with label 1 Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1 Peter. Show all posts
Monday, June 3, 2013
The conclusion of 1 Peter (1 Peter 5)
The ending of 1 Peter perhaps provides a surprise with which we can re-interpret the whole book. It comes off a surprise ending to a mystery story and we can see something else was happening all along.
Peter says in verse 13: "She who is Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.".
It is a little cryptic, but I think Peter means he is in Babylon, I.e., Rome. If he is in Rome and referring to it as "Babylon", then he is likely a prisoner.
Another clue could be found in 2 Timothy 4:11 where Paul specifically requests that Mark come to Rome.
As for Silas, he travelled extensively with Paul. See Acts 16-18. His formal named, Sylvanus, is also mentioned in Paul's Epistles to Corinth and Thessalonica. (2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Thess. 1:1, and 2 Thess. 1:1).
Non-canonical tradition and sources indicate that Peter was martyred in Rome, perhaps at the coliseum. The story goes that he did not want to be crucified like Jesus, so the Romans crucified him upside down.
But why is Peter in Rome? We know Paul went to Rome because he was arrested and Paul, being a Roman citizen, appealed to Caesar. Peter was not a Roman citizen and would not have had the luxury. If he went, he probably went voluntarily. But the Gospel was shifting to the Gentiles and Rome was the greatest Gentile city at the time, being the capital of the Empire.
Looking back at the rest of 1 Peter, if Peter is writing from Rome, then Peter knows first hand suffering for the church. But yet, he does not mention it and certainly does not complain about it. Rather, he spends the letter encouraging others who are suffering.
It also gives some interesting insight on his advice on obeying one's political rulers (2:13-17), passive resistance (2:23-25), and specifically, "honor the king". (2:17). Peter could very well be on the way to his own martyrdom at the hands of the Roman soldiers yet encourages others to obey the very same government that is about to kill Peter.
Peter says in verse 13: "She who is Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.".
It is a little cryptic, but I think Peter means he is in Babylon, I.e., Rome. If he is in Rome and referring to it as "Babylon", then he is likely a prisoner.
Another clue could be found in 2 Timothy 4:11 where Paul specifically requests that Mark come to Rome.
As for Silas, he travelled extensively with Paul. See Acts 16-18. His formal named, Sylvanus, is also mentioned in Paul's Epistles to Corinth and Thessalonica. (2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Thess. 1:1, and 2 Thess. 1:1).
Non-canonical tradition and sources indicate that Peter was martyred in Rome, perhaps at the coliseum. The story goes that he did not want to be crucified like Jesus, so the Romans crucified him upside down.
But why is Peter in Rome? We know Paul went to Rome because he was arrested and Paul, being a Roman citizen, appealed to Caesar. Peter was not a Roman citizen and would not have had the luxury. If he went, he probably went voluntarily. But the Gospel was shifting to the Gentiles and Rome was the greatest Gentile city at the time, being the capital of the Empire.
Looking back at the rest of 1 Peter, if Peter is writing from Rome, then Peter knows first hand suffering for the church. But yet, he does not mention it and certainly does not complain about it. Rather, he spends the letter encouraging others who are suffering.
It also gives some interesting insight on his advice on obeying one's political rulers (2:13-17), passive resistance (2:23-25), and specifically, "honor the king". (2:17). Peter could very well be on the way to his own martyrdom at the hands of the Roman soldiers yet encourages others to obey the very same government that is about to kill Peter.
Living and suffering for God (1 Peter 4)
Peter assumes that his readers are suffering or will suffer for God. The extent thereof could be martyrdom. This seems to be alluded to by discussing that Christ suffered "in the body" and that others who do the same will be "free from sin". The phrase "free from sin" suggests death.
Peter gives advice for people in this situation.
Love each other deeply (v. 8)
The rationale is that love covers a multitude of sins. I think Peter means that people are apt to forgive you if you show them genuine love and concern.
Offer hospitality without grumbling (v. 9)
Coming right after the necessity of loving each other deeply, Peter says we must do it "without grumbling". What does this mean? I think it must be genuine, not cause rifts between, and without expectation of something in return.
Serve each other with your gifts (v. 10)
The idea of gifts are expounded on in the letters written by Paul. Here, Peter affirms the concept that Paul discusses at length.
The Gospel spoken to those who died (v. 5-6)
Here, we find a concept that is not expounded elsewhere and it comes out a little strange. But, Peter says that the Gospel was spoken to those who died.
How did this happen? When? Who exactly? Is there an assembly of ghosts that someone is preaching to? I think we would all like more details on what Peter meant by this.
Peter gives advice for people in this situation.
Love each other deeply (v. 8)
The rationale is that love covers a multitude of sins. I think Peter means that people are apt to forgive you if you show them genuine love and concern.
Offer hospitality without grumbling (v. 9)
Coming right after the necessity of loving each other deeply, Peter says we must do it "without grumbling". What does this mean? I think it must be genuine, not cause rifts between, and without expectation of something in return.
Serve each other with your gifts (v. 10)
The idea of gifts are expounded on in the letters written by Paul. Here, Peter affirms the concept that Paul discusses at length.
The Gospel spoken to those who died (v. 5-6)
Here, we find a concept that is not expounded elsewhere and it comes out a little strange. But, Peter says that the Gospel was spoken to those who died.
How did this happen? When? Who exactly? Is there an assembly of ghosts that someone is preaching to? I think we would all like more details on what Peter meant by this.
Hope and Suffering (1 Peter 3: 8-22)
Peter discusses the importance of living good, peaceful lives to avoid extra suffering.
This section provides greater context in that he is indeed addressing churches in the midst of persecution. It also fits themes we see previously in the book with regard to living harmoniously with others, whether the relationship be citizen-state, slave-master, or husband-wife.
One thing that stands out to me is that Peter says that the eight people aboard Noah's Ark were baptized by the waters. His rationale is that they were "saved" through water. It is a challenging and interesting interpretation of the story, since they were actually saved by the boat and it was the water that destroyed everything else. But perhaps Peter means that the water saved Noah's family from the rampant evil found in the world.
This section provides greater context in that he is indeed addressing churches in the midst of persecution. It also fits themes we see previously in the book with regard to living harmoniously with others, whether the relationship be citizen-state, slave-master, or husband-wife.
One thing that stands out to me is that Peter says that the eight people aboard Noah's Ark were baptized by the waters. His rationale is that they were "saved" through water. It is a challenging and interesting interpretation of the story, since they were actually saved by the boat and it was the water that destroyed everything else. But perhaps Peter means that the water saved Noah's family from the rampant evil found in the world.
Wives and husbands (1 Peter 3:1-7)
Peter has similar advice to familial relations as did Paul in Ephesians 5:22 et seq. Peter advises marriage harmony, women "submit" to husbands and husbands respect their wives.
This is one of those statements from the Bible that gets thrown around a lot, both as a reason to subjugate women in marriages and to dispense with the advice found in the Bible.
For starters, 'divorcing' the husband's corollary duty to respect the wife is actually un-Biblical. Both Peter and Paul discuss reciprocal duties in the marriage and these should be viewed together.
Finding a proper application to this in the modern sense is difficult since Peter and Paul both spoke to cities in ancient Rome. At the time, women were not even allowed to testify in court. Maybe we should also remind ourselves at this point that Paul said that people should only get married if they burn. 1 Corinthians 7.
When Peter speaks to women in particular, his emphasis is on the importance of inner beauty. This inner beauty is a "gentle and quiet spirit". In other words, be nice to people and you will always be beautiful. If we look at the modern application through this principle, I think it reinforces the expectation of harmony in the marriage.
An open question is if a husband does not respect the wife, is there no longer a reciprocal duty?
This is one of those statements from the Bible that gets thrown around a lot, both as a reason to subjugate women in marriages and to dispense with the advice found in the Bible.
For starters, 'divorcing' the husband's corollary duty to respect the wife is actually un-Biblical. Both Peter and Paul discuss reciprocal duties in the marriage and these should be viewed together.
Finding a proper application to this in the modern sense is difficult since Peter and Paul both spoke to cities in ancient Rome. At the time, women were not even allowed to testify in court. Maybe we should also remind ourselves at this point that Paul said that people should only get married if they burn. 1 Corinthians 7.
When Peter speaks to women in particular, his emphasis is on the importance of inner beauty. This inner beauty is a "gentle and quiet spirit". In other words, be nice to people and you will always be beautiful. If we look at the modern application through this principle, I think it reinforces the expectation of harmony in the marriage.
An open question is if a husband does not respect the wife, is there no longer a reciprocal duty?
1 Peter 2
Crave milk (v. 1-3)
The first few verses provide a conclusion to the prior chapter. Peter concludes that the people in these churches should crave spiritual milk just as a newborn baby does. If we consider how a baby craves milk, it involves crying and making a scene.
Cornerstones (v. 4-12)
This chapter emphasizes Christ as the cornerstone. In its logic, Peter cites three Old Testament passages.
One passage discusses a cornerstone from Zion. (Isaiah 28:16). The other two discuss how people will reject the stone or stumble over a stone. (Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14, respectively).
A few things come to my mind.
First, Christ said that Peter was the stone on which Jesus will build the church. (Matthew 16:18). On one hand, Peter is using the same analogy, but is not reminding him the church that Jesus said that he, Peter, was a stone. Peter does not have to remind them of this at all, because the name Peter, means "stone", Greek from "Petros". In the opening of the letter Peter reminds the reader that his name is Peter and not Simon. (1:1)
But in chapter 2, Peter discuses that Christ is the cornerstone, not Peter. So, Peter punts the importance of a stone from Peter to Jesus.
Second, I am no architect, but I understand the importance of cornerstones. Walking around NYC, I have seen a number of buildings with engraved cornerstones. They stand out and are easily visible at eye level. When I see one, my usual response is to glance at the rest of the building.
Submit to rulers (v. 13-25)
Peter also encourages the people to obey their human governments. If they are slaves, obey their masters. We have seen similar advice from Paul written to others.
What is interesting is that this comes after an analogy of the church is a group of strangers and aliens in a foreign land. (v. 11). Yet, Peter advises the church to live as normal, obeying citizens.
How to balance it?
The emphasis on living as strangers here is affiliated with moral duties. (v. 12). Our lives are a testimony to others to glorify God. Living as a good citizen is part of it. Honor the king and obey your masters.
The chapter ends with a discussion on passive resistance. It reminds the reader that Christ was innocent, yet suffered greatly. Peter reminds the church that they should expect such treatment and if they suffer for the cause of God, it is commendable.
Taking a step back, why is Peter saying all this? It sounds like he is writing to churches facing imminent persecution, perhaps martyrdom. Yet, he encourages them to obey the law, honor the king, and suffer for the cause of God.
What would be a good modern application of this? Certainly, we should honor our democratically elected officials even if we disagree with them. That is a low bar. Some of the rhetoric I hear about Obama from people who claim to know Christ just churns my stomach.
However, I don't think that Peter is even talking about an otherwise peaceful democratic government. I think Peter has in mind something far more insidious. A better modern day analogy is the situation of Christianity in places like China, where the government is actively attempting to stamp it out.
The first few verses provide a conclusion to the prior chapter. Peter concludes that the people in these churches should crave spiritual milk just as a newborn baby does. If we consider how a baby craves milk, it involves crying and making a scene.
Cornerstones (v. 4-12)
This chapter emphasizes Christ as the cornerstone. In its logic, Peter cites three Old Testament passages.
One passage discusses a cornerstone from Zion. (Isaiah 28:16). The other two discuss how people will reject the stone or stumble over a stone. (Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14, respectively).
A few things come to my mind.
First, Christ said that Peter was the stone on which Jesus will build the church. (Matthew 16:18). On one hand, Peter is using the same analogy, but is not reminding him the church that Jesus said that he, Peter, was a stone. Peter does not have to remind them of this at all, because the name Peter, means "stone", Greek from "Petros". In the opening of the letter Peter reminds the reader that his name is Peter and not Simon. (1:1)
But in chapter 2, Peter discuses that Christ is the cornerstone, not Peter. So, Peter punts the importance of a stone from Peter to Jesus.
Second, I am no architect, but I understand the importance of cornerstones. Walking around NYC, I have seen a number of buildings with engraved cornerstones. They stand out and are easily visible at eye level. When I see one, my usual response is to glance at the rest of the building.
Submit to rulers (v. 13-25)
Peter also encourages the people to obey their human governments. If they are slaves, obey their masters. We have seen similar advice from Paul written to others.
What is interesting is that this comes after an analogy of the church is a group of strangers and aliens in a foreign land. (v. 11). Yet, Peter advises the church to live as normal, obeying citizens.
How to balance it?
The emphasis on living as strangers here is affiliated with moral duties. (v. 12). Our lives are a testimony to others to glorify God. Living as a good citizen is part of it. Honor the king and obey your masters.
The chapter ends with a discussion on passive resistance. It reminds the reader that Christ was innocent, yet suffered greatly. Peter reminds the church that they should expect such treatment and if they suffer for the cause of God, it is commendable.
Taking a step back, why is Peter saying all this? It sounds like he is writing to churches facing imminent persecution, perhaps martyrdom. Yet, he encourages them to obey the law, honor the king, and suffer for the cause of God.
What would be a good modern application of this? Certainly, we should honor our democratically elected officials even if we disagree with them. That is a low bar. Some of the rhetoric I hear about Obama from people who claim to know Christ just churns my stomach.
However, I don't think that Peter is even talking about an otherwise peaceful democratic government. I think Peter has in mind something far more insidious. A better modern day analogy is the situation of Christianity in places like China, where the government is actively attempting to stamp it out.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
1 Peter 1
Predestination v. Free Will
Peter addresses the letter as to "God's elect" scattered among various cities and "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father". (v. 1-2, NIV quotes).
This is one of the main verses that adherents of predestination rely on. The verse refers to "God's" elect and people "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God". I strongly lean towards the free will spectrum, so let me address this.
What does it mean to be "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God?"
Another possibility is that the "foreknowledge" of God does not refer to individual and the lifetime of individuals, but speaking at a macroscopic level of God's plan. Peter addresses the letter to churches, not individuals, nor does anything to change the tone to speaking to individuals.
Likewise, the specifics of what they are being chosen for are broad strokes of God's plan - redemption by Jesus. Later in verse 20, it discusses that Jesus was chosen before the rest of creation. So, the fact that Jesus came to redeem people was part of God's plan all along. Similarly, it was also part of God's plan to have churches.
This complicates of the timing of the choice referred to in verses 1-2.
To what does the choice and foreknowledge of God refer? At the least, it would refer to the selection of Jesus in verse 20, but whether it refers to individuals is unclear.
As for as individual faith goes, we know elsewhere that faith is a gift from God. See, Ephesians 2:8. A gift requires a choice in order to give the gift. God has to choose to give us more faith or any faith at all. As stated, the choice occurs for individual faith is unclear in 1 Peter 1. On one hand, if God sees through the dimension of time, that eons are the same as minutes, then this question becomes an abstract principal for speculation. On the other, perhaps God only gives people faith to the extent they ask for it. This latter would have broad-reaching implications for our individual lives.
Finally, what is that people are chosen for in 1 Peter 1? In verse 2, it says "for obedience to Jesus Christ". Obedience and disobedience requires a choice on the person. A person can obey or not, but it requires a choice. This is where adherents of predestination really lose me in the logic.
Peter outlines the implications of this later in chapter 1 with the encourage to be holy. If every human individual's choice was already pre-ordained and chosen by God, then Peter would not need to tell the churches to obey, they would just do it on their own.
"Last times" (v. 20)
We also see the phrase "last times" again. Peter refers to as "we", which includes Peter, are living in "these last times". As I explain elsewhere, I believe this phrase is used to mean anything after Pentecost in Acts 1-2.
Peter addresses the letter as to "God's elect" scattered among various cities and "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father". (v. 1-2, NIV quotes).
This is one of the main verses that adherents of predestination rely on. The verse refers to "God's" elect and people "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God". I strongly lean towards the free will spectrum, so let me address this.
What does it mean to be "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God?"
Another possibility is that the "foreknowledge" of God does not refer to individual and the lifetime of individuals, but speaking at a macroscopic level of God's plan. Peter addresses the letter to churches, not individuals, nor does anything to change the tone to speaking to individuals.
Likewise, the specifics of what they are being chosen for are broad strokes of God's plan - redemption by Jesus. Later in verse 20, it discusses that Jesus was chosen before the rest of creation. So, the fact that Jesus came to redeem people was part of God's plan all along. Similarly, it was also part of God's plan to have churches.
This complicates of the timing of the choice referred to in verses 1-2.
To what does the choice and foreknowledge of God refer? At the least, it would refer to the selection of Jesus in verse 20, but whether it refers to individuals is unclear.
As for as individual faith goes, we know elsewhere that faith is a gift from God. See, Ephesians 2:8. A gift requires a choice in order to give the gift. God has to choose to give us more faith or any faith at all. As stated, the choice occurs for individual faith is unclear in 1 Peter 1. On one hand, if God sees through the dimension of time, that eons are the same as minutes, then this question becomes an abstract principal for speculation. On the other, perhaps God only gives people faith to the extent they ask for it. This latter would have broad-reaching implications for our individual lives.
Finally, what is that people are chosen for in 1 Peter 1? In verse 2, it says "for obedience to Jesus Christ". Obedience and disobedience requires a choice on the person. A person can obey or not, but it requires a choice. This is where adherents of predestination really lose me in the logic.
Peter outlines the implications of this later in chapter 1 with the encourage to be holy. If every human individual's choice was already pre-ordained and chosen by God, then Peter would not need to tell the churches to obey, they would just do it on their own.
"Last times" (v. 20)
We also see the phrase "last times" again. Peter refers to as "we", which includes Peter, are living in "these last times". As I explain elsewhere, I believe this phrase is used to mean anything after Pentecost in Acts 1-2.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
What's left?
It looks like Titus and 1 Peter.
I am almost done with my first draft of the commentary.
I am almost done with my first draft of the commentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)