1 & 2 Peter, Jude 1573128074, 9781573128070

Citation preview

1 & 2 Peter, Jude

Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Peter, Jude Publication Staff President & CEO Cecil P. Staton Publisher & Executive Vice President Lex Horton Vice President, Production Keith Gammons Book Editor Leslie Andres Graphic Designers Daniel Emerson Dave Jones Assistant Editors Rachel Stancil Greco Kelley F. Land

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. 6316 Peake Road Macon, Georgia 31210-3960 1-800-747-3016 © 2010 by Smyth & Helwys Publishing All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-57312-807-0

SMYTH & HELWYS BIBLE COMMENTARY

1 & 2 Peter, Jude Richard B. Vinson Richard F. Wilson Watson E. Mills

PROJECT EDITOR R. SCOTT NASH Mercer University Macon, Georgia

OLD TESTAMENT GENERAL EDITOR SAMUEL E. BALENTINE Union Presbyterian Seminary Richmond, Virginia AREA OLD TESTAMENT EDITORS MARK E. BIDDLE Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia KANDY QUEEN-SUTHERLAND Stetson University Deland, Florida PAUL REDDITT Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky

NEW TESTAMENT GENERAL EDITOR R. ALAN CULPEPPER McAfee School of Theology Mercer University Atlanta, Georgia AREA NEW TESTAMENT EDITORS R. SCOTT NASH Mercer University Macon, Georgia RICHARD B. VINSON Salem College Winston-Salem, North Carolina

praise for the smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Series “This is biblical commentary at its best—and most useful.” —Tremper Longman III Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies Westmont College

“Rarely does one find a biblical commentary that is scholarly, indepth, insightful, theological, and relevant…a masterpiece!” —J. Randall O’Brien President Carson-Newman College

“The illustrations, sidebars, and tools are, as has become the standard in the Smyth & Helwys commentary series, outstanding.” —Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford Associate Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages McAfee School of Theology

“This appealing commentary is beautifully produced, with photographs as well as pictures of art works. Here is a book that will handsomely reward its readers in a variety of ways.” —Donald A. Hagner George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament Fuller Theological Seminary

“This fine commentary seeks to bridge ‘the gap between the insights of biblical scholars’ and lay readers. Along with interpretative insights, it uses sidebars on contextual, cultural, and homiletic matters to lead readers to connections with the contemporary church.” —Robert Kysar Professor Emeritus of Preaching and New Testament Candler School of Theology, Emory University

Contents ABBREVIATIONS

xi

SERIES PREFACE

xv xix

HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY

1 Peter xxv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1

INTRODUCTION

29

OUTLINE OF 1 PETER

Called by God to Holiness

1 Peter 1

31

Stones, Sojourners, and Slaves

1 Peter 2

87

Conduct at Home and in the World

1 Peter 3

139

The End of Suffering

1 Peter 4

187

Closing Advice from Peter the Elder

1 Peter 5

227 251

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 Peter ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

259

INTRODUCTION

261

OUTLINE OF 2 PETER

287

Conversional Knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Demand for Character Development

2 Peter 1:1-11

289

Peter’s “Testament” and a Defense of Parousia, Prophecy, and “the Master”

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

309

The Certainty of Judgment

2 Peter 2:1-22

327

Reminders, Encouragements, and Defenses

2 Peter 3:1-18

347

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

Jude INTRODUCTION

369

OUTLINE OF JUDE

373

The Epistle Jude

375

BIBLIOGRAPHY

403

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS FOR 1 PETER

405

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS FOR 2 PETER

407

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS FOR JUDE

409

INDEX OF SIDEBARS AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR 1 PETER

411

INDEX OF SIDEBARS AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR 2 PETER

413

INDEX OF SIDEBARS AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR JUDE

415

INDEX OF TOPICS FOR 1 PETER

417

INDEX OF TOPICS FOR 2 PETER

421

INDEX OF TOPICS FOR JUDE

425

INDEX OF SCRIPTURES

427

Dedication

To Diane —R.V.


For The Seekers Class First Baptist Church of Christ at Macon aujxavnete pavnte~ hJmei`~ ejn cavriti kai; gnwvsei tou` kurivou hJmw`n kai; swth`ro~ jIhsou` Cristou`. —R.W.

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS COMMENTARY Books of the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament are generally abbreviated in the Sidebars, parenthetical references, and notes according to the following system. The Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm (Psalms) Proverbs Ecclesiastes or Qoheleth Song of Solomon or Song of Songs or Canticles Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1–2 Sam 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps (Pss) Prov Eccl Qoh Song Song Cant Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic

xii

Abbreviations Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

The Apocrypha 1–2 Esdras Tobit Judith Additions to Esther Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruch Epistle (or Letter) of Jeremiah Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Daniel and Susanna Daniel, Bel, and the Dragon Prayer of Manasseh 1–4 Maccabees

1–2 Esdr Tob Jdt Add Esth Wis Sir Bar Ep Jer Pr Azar Sus Bel Pr Man 1–4 Macc

The New Testament Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1–2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1–2 Peter 1–2–3 John Jude Revelation

Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1–2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1–2 Thess 1–2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1–2 Pet 1–2–3 John Jude Rev

Abbreviations Other commonly used abbreviations include: AD

BC

C. c. cf. ch. chs. d. ed. eds. e.g. et al. f./ff. gen. ed. Gk. Heb. ibid. i.e. LCL lit. n.d. rev. and exp. ed. sg. trans. vol(s). v. vv.

Anno Domini (“in the year of the Lord”) (also commonly referred to as CE = the Common Era) Before Christ (also commonly referred to as BCE = Before the Common Era) century circa (around “that time”) confer (compare) chapter chapters died edition or edited by or editor editors exempli gratia (for example) et alii (and others) and the following one(s) general editor Greek Hebrew ibidem (in the same place) id est (that is) Loeb Classical Library literally no date revised and expanded edition singular translated by or translator(s) volume(s) verse verses

Selected additional written works cited by abbreviations include the following. A complete listing of abbreviations can be referenced in The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1999): AB ABD ACCS ANF ANTC BA BAR CBQ HTR

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Ante-Nicene Fathers Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Catholic Biblical Quarterly Harvard Theological Review

xiii

xiv

Abbreviations HUCA ICC IDB JBL JSJ JSNT JSOT KJV LXX MDB MT NASB NEB NICNT NIV NovT NRSV NTS OGIS OTL PRSt RevExp RSV SBLSP SP TDNT TEV WBC

Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament King James Version Septuagint = Greek Translation of Hebrew Bible Mercer Dictionary of the Bible Masoretic Text New American Standard Bible New English Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Version Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae Old Testament Library Perspectives in Religious Studies Review and Expositor Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Sacra pagina Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Today’s English Version Word Biblical Commentary

SERIES PREFACE The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is a visually stimulating and user-friendly series that is as close to multimedia in print as possible. Written by accomplished scholars with all students of Scripture in mind, the primary goal of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is to make available serious, credible biblical scholarship in an accessible and less intimidating format. Far too many Bible commentaries fall short of bridging the gap between the insights of biblical scholars and the needs of students of God’s written word. In an unprecedented way, the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary brings insightful commentary to bear on the lives of contemporary Christians. Using a multimedia format, the volumes employ a stunning array of art, photographs, maps, and drawings to illustrate the truths of the Bible for a visual generation of believers. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is built upon the idea that meaningful Bible study can occur when the insights of contemporary biblical scholars blend with sensitivity to the needs of lifelong students of Scripture. Some persons within local faith communities, however, struggle with potentially informative biblical scholarship for several reasons. Oftentimes, such scholarship is cast in technical language easily grasped by other scholars, but not by the general reader. For example, lengthy, technical discussions on every detail of a particular scriptural text can hinder the quest for a clear grasp of the whole. Also, the format for presenting scholarly insights has often been confusing to the general reader, rendering the work less than helpful. Unfortunately, responses to the hurdles of reading extensive commentaries have led some publishers to produce works for a general readership that merely skim the surface of the rich resources of biblical scholarship. This commentary series incorporates works of fine art in an accurate and scholarly manner, yet the format remains “user-friendly.” An important facet is the presentation and explanation of images of art, which interpret the biblical material or illustrate how the biblical material has been understood and interpreted in the past. A visual generation of believers deserves a commentary series that contains not only the all-important textual commentary on Scripture, but images, photographs, maps, works of fine art, and drawings that bring the text to life.

xvi

Series Preface

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary makes serious, credible biblical scholarship more accessible to a wider audience. Writers and editors alike present information in ways that encourage readers to gain a better understanding of the Bible. The editorial board has worked to develop a format that is useful and usable, informative and pleasing to the eye. Our writers are reputable scholars who participate in the community of faith and sense a calling to communicate the results of their scholarship to their faith community. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary addresses Christians and the larger church. While both respect for and sensitivity to the needs and contributions of other faith communities are reflected in the work of the series authors, the authors speak primarily to Christians. Thus the reader can note a confessional tone throughout the volumes. No particular “confession of faith” guides the authors, and diverse perspectives are observed in the various volumes. Each writer, though, brings to the biblical text the best scholarly tools available and expresses the results of their studies in commentary and visuals that assist readers seeking a word from the Lord for the church. To accomplish this goal, writers in this series have drawn from numerous streams in the rich tradition of biblical interpretation. The basic focus is the biblical text itself, and considerable attention is given to the wording and structure of texts. Each particular text, however, is also considered in the light of the entire canon of Christian Scriptures. Beyond this, attention is given to the cultural context of the biblical writings. Information from archaeology, ancient history, geography, comparative literature, history of religions, politics, sociology, and even economics is used to illuminate the culture of the people who produced the Bible. In addition, the writers have drawn from the history of interpretation, not only as it is found in traditional commentary on the Bible but also in literature, theater, church history, and the visual arts. Finally, the Commentary on Scripture is joined with Connections to the world of the contemporary church. Here again, the writers draw on scholarship in many fields as well as relevant issues in the popular culture. This wealth of information might easily overwhelm a reader if not presented in a “user-friendly” format. Thus the heavier discussions of detail and the treatments of other helpful topics are presented in special-interest boxes, or Sidebars, clearly connected to the passages under discussion so as not to interrupt the flow of the basic interpretation. The result is a commentary on Scripture that

Series Preface

focuses on the theological significance of a text while also offering the reader a rich array of additional information related to the text and its interpretation. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource is a distinctive feature of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Combining credible biblical scholarship, user-friendly study features, and sensitivity to the needs of a visually oriented generation of believers creates a unique and unprecedented type of commentary series. With insight from many of today’s finest biblical scholars and a stunning visual format, it is our hope that the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary will be a welcome addition to the personal libraries of all students of Scripture. The Editors

xvii

HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is written by accomplished biblical scholars with a wide array of readers in mind. Whether engaged in the study of Scripture in a church setting or in a college or seminary classroom, all students of the Bible will find a number of useful features throughout the commentary that are helpful for interpreting the Bible. Basic Design of the Volumes

Each volume features an Introduction to a particular book of the Bible, providing a brief guide to information that is necessary for reading and interpreting the text: the historical setting, literary design, and theological significance. Each Introduction also includes a comprehensive outline of the particular book under study. Each chapter of the commentary investigates the text according to logical divisions in a particular book of the Bible. Sometimes these divisions follow the traditional chapter segmentation, while at other times the textual units consist of sections of chapters or portions of more than one chapter. The divisions reflect the literary structure of a book and offer a guide for selecting passages that are useful in preaching and teaching. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource also allows unprecedented flexibility and freedom for the reader. Carry the text version to locations you most enjoy doing research while knowing that the CD offers a portable alternative for travel from the office, church, classroom, and your home. Commentary and Connections

As each chapter explores a textual unit, the discussion centers around two basic sections: Commentary and Connections. The analysis of a passage, including the details of its language, the history reflected in the text, and the literary forms found in the text, are the main focus

xx

How to Use This Commentary

of the Commentary section. The primary concern of the Commentary section is to explore the theological issues presented by the Scripture passage. Connections presents potential applications of the insights provided in the Commentary section. The Connections portion of each chapter considers what issues are relevant for teaching and suggests useful methods and resources. Connections also identifies themes suitable for sermon planning and suggests helpful approaches for preaching on the Scripture text. Sidebars

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary provides a unique hyperlink format that quickly guides the reader to additional insights. Since other more technical or supplementary information is vital for understanding a text and its implications, the volumes feature distinctive Sidebars, or special-interest boxes, that provide a wealth of information on such matters as: • Historical information (such as chronological charts, lists of kings or rulers, maps, descriptions of monetary systems, descriptions of special groups, descriptions of archaeological sites or geographical settings). • Graphic outlines of literary structure (including such items as poetry, chiasm, repetition, epistolary form). • Definition or brief discussions of technical or theological terms and issues. • Insightful quotations that are not integrated into the running text but are relevant to the passage under discussion. • Notes on the history of interpretation (Augustine on the Good Samaritan, Luther on James, Stendahl on Romans, etc.). • Line drawings, photographs, and other illustrations relevant for understanding the historical context or interpretive significance of the text. • Presentation and discussion of works of fine art that have interpreted a Scripture passage.

How to Use This Commentary

Each Sidebar is printed in color and is referenced at the appropriate place in the Commentary or Connections section with a color-coded title that directs the reader to the relevant Sidebar. In addition, helpful icons appear in the Sidebars, which provide the reader with visual cues to the type of material that is explained in each Sidebar. Throughout the commentary, these four distinct hyperlinks provide useful links in an easily recognizable design.

Alpha & Omega Language

This icon identifies the information as a language-based tool that offers further exploration of the Scripture selection. This could include syntactical information, word studies, popular or additional uses of the word(s) in question, additional contexts in which the term appears, and the history of the term’s translation. All nonEnglish terms are transliterated into the appropriate English characters.

Culture/Context

This icon introduces further comment on contextual or cultural details that shed light on the Scripture selection. Describing the place and time to which a Scripture passage refers is often vital to the task of biblical interpretation. Sidebar items introduced with this icon could include geographical, historical, political, social, topographical, or economic information. Here, the reader may find an excerpt of an ancient text or inscription that sheds light on the text. Or one may find a description of some element of ancient religion such as Baalism in Canaan or the Hero cult in the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world.

Interpretation

Sidebars that appear under this icon serve a general interpretive function in terms of both historical and contemporary renderings. Under this heading, the reader might find a selection from classic or contemporary literature that illuminates the Scripture text or a significant quotation from a famous sermon that addresses the passage. Insights are drawn from various sources, including literature, worship, theater, church history, and sociology.

xxi

xxii

How to Use This Commentary

Additional Resources Study

Here, the reader finds a convenient list of useful resources for further investigation of the selected Scripture text, including books, journals, websites, special collections, organizations, and societies. Specialized discussions of works not often associated with biblical studies may also appear here. Additional Features

Each volume also includes a basic Bibliography on the biblical book under study. Other bibliographies on selected issues are often included that point the reader to other helpful resources. Notes at the end of each chapter provide full documentation of sources used and contain additional discussions of related matters. Abbreviations used in each volume are explained in a list of abbreviations found after the Table of Contents. Readers of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary can regularly visit the Internet support site for news, information, updates, and enhancements to the series at www.helwys.com/commentary. Several thorough indexes enable the reader to locate information quickly. These indexes include: • An Index of Sidebars groups content from the special-interest boxes by category (maps, fine art, photographs, drawings, etc.). • An Index of Scriptures lists citations to particular biblical texts. • An Index of Topics lists alphabetically the major subjects, names, topics, and locations referenced or discussed in the volume. • An Index of Modern Authors organizes contemporary authors whose works are cited in the volume.

1 Peter

Acknowledgments Thanks to Alan Culpepper and the editorial board for asking me to write on 1 Peter, and to Leslie Andres and the rest of the editorial staff at Smyth & Helwys for their good work. Bryan Hovey, Bob Tuttle, Vera Witherspoon, and Dee Smart were wonderful co-learners in a 1 Peter seminar at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Charlotte, and I am grateful for our interactions. Dean Tom Currie, also of Union in Charlotte, read the manuscript and made numerous helpful suggestions—thank you, Tom. My wife, Diane Lipsett, read this more than once, and in this project as in all things was my best conversation partner. Richard Vinson July 2010

Introduction to 1 Peter “This epistle of St. Peter is also one of the noblest books in the New Testament; it is the genuine and pure Gospel.” So opined Luther, who did not mind criticizing books in the canon if he thought they came short of gospel truth. Although 1 Peter expresses the gospel differently from Luther’s beloved St. Paul, it “teaches the true faith and tells us that Christ was given to us to take away our sin and save us.”1 E. G. Selwyn’s magisterial commentary also begins with praise for the letter: “Despite its brevity—only 105 verses in all—it is a microcosm of Christian faith and duty, the model of a pastoral charge.” Selwyn refers to the author’s “quiet and cheerful confidence” and “firm, yet humble and persuasive spirit,”2 and with that most readers would agree. The writer of 1 Peter does not choose to focus on his audience’s shortcomings, but instead praises their standing in Christ. He is fully aware of the kinds of hardships some of them face; slaves suffer beatings from harsh masters, and Christians of every status put up with slanders, endure verbal abuse, and face the possibility of more physical dangers. In order to help his readers bear up and keep their faith, 1 Peter chooses to boost their confidence by telling them how well they are doing, and to hand them multiple ways they can interpret their own experience. Authorship

Eusebius, writing around AD 323, said the following about 1 Peter: “Of Peter one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early Fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings.”3 The author of 2 Peter, who most think was not the same as the author of 1 Peter, knows of the first letter and tries to draw on its authority (2 Pet 3:1). Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians unquestionably uses 1 Peter as an authority, and 1 Clement possibly does (see below). Selwyn finds “quotations or echoes in Barnabas, Hermas, Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch.”4 Some of the parallels noted by Selwyn are too vague to prove the use of 1 Peter, but others, slightly later than these, are certain: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian all cite

2

Introduction to 1 Peter

1 Peter and attribute it to the apostle. Eusebius’s judgment is thus a valid summary of Christian consensus at least from the end of the second century on. Modern commentators, however, mostly question whether Peter the apostle could have written 1 Peter. The main arguments are as follows: 1. The Greek of 1 Peter is too complicated to have been composed by Peter. While one should not overstate the case—1 Peter is not Plato or even Josephus—it is written at a higher level than the Gospels (except for the first four verses of Luke), Revelation, or the Johannine epistles, and is roughly comparable to the level of Greek in Paul’s letters. It is implausible that Peter the Galilean fisherman would have had the education sufficient to write Eusebius on Mark and Peter like this. Acts calls him “unlettered,” while the Eusebius wrote his Church History around AD 323. In it, he quotes many earliest tradition about Mark’s authorship makes documents no longer extant, including the the author of that Gospel, rough as it is, Peter’s works of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who died interpreter/translator when he was preaching in around AD 140. Papias’s testimony in turn Rome. [Eusebius on Mark and Peter] quotes from a man named John the Elder, whom Papias knew personally, and who had 2. Moreover, quotations from the Old known eyewitnesses to Jesus. Testament in 1 Peter are from the LXX, rather John the Elder also said this: Mark was the than being translations from Hebrew. Again, this interpreter (or translator) of Peter, and whatever is hard to square with a Galilean fisherman whose Mark wrote he transcribed accurately, but not, however, in order, for he neither heard nor follifetime experience of hearing the Bible would lowed our Lord. Mark was in company with have been in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. [LXX] Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs 3. “Peter” addresses “exiles of the dispersion in of his audience, but Mark was not attempting a Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and history of our Lord’s discourses. In this way, Mark made no mistake, for he made it his one Bithynia”—a multi-ethnic Christian audience concern not to omit anything or to state anythat surely included Jews as well as Gentiles. thing falsely. “Peter” consistently urges the readers to leave behind their ancestral customs and, in holiness, to live out the destiny given to Israel in the Old Testament as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, LXX God’s own people,” etc. Yet there “LXX” is the standard abbreviation for the Septuagint, the is nothing in 1 Peter about obediancient Greek version of the Old Testament. Parts of the Old ence to Torah, circumcision, Testament were translated from Hebrew to Greek at different times beginning around the third century before Christ. The LXX was used Sabbath observance, eating first by Jews whose native language was something other than kosher, or any of the important Hebrew or Aramaic, but it was also the Bible for first-century and divisive issues that confronted Christians living outside Palestine. There were several different Greek congregations composed of Jewish translations, and we have no idea which one the author of 1 Peter would have used, but he clearly read the Old Testament in Greek.

Introduction to 1 Peter

and Gentile followers of Jesus. If Peter the apostle wrote this letter or had anything directly to do with its composition, it must have been composed in the early to mid-60s, and it would have come from Rome. Compare the way Paul, writing to Roman Christians in the mid- to late 50s, offers help on these issues in Romans 14–15; Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals show that the same issues extended into the post-Pauline period. Toward the end of the first century, Revelation and the Didache demonstrate that these issues were still alive and well, and the letters of Ignatius and Barnabas extend the issues into the first half of the second century. How is it possible that the “apostle of the circumcised” (Gal 2:8) had nothing to say about whether Gentiles must keep some or all of the Torah, or whether Jewish Christians are to be encouraged to keep the Law down to jots and tittles? How is it that Peter failed to address the issue of whether it is permissible for Christians to eat food previously sacrificed to idols? It does not seem reasonable to me that the Apostle Peter would be silent about the Law.5 Other objections, such as that the author never cites the words or deeds of Jesus, or that one can show no connection between Peter and the areas to which 1 Peter is addressed, are not definitive. The Apostle Peter would not need to establish his bona fides with the audience, and if 1 Peter had cited Jesus often, surely we would see that as a sign of its pseudonymous status. Yet the fact that the author does not quote Jesus cannot be evidence for the letter’s authenticity—it is just one of those odd things that proves nothing. Almost all modern critical commentators on 1 Peter accept the weight of points 1 and 2 above. Peter might have been able to speak Greek, but Aramaic was his mother tongue, and 1 Peter was not written by someone who wrote Greek badly, as if he or she were thinking in Aramaic and then writing Greek (as the writer of Revelation may have done). Those who believe Peter the apostle was directly connected to the letter’s composition suggest that Peter would have needed a secretary. Those who do not believe that Peter the apostle was directly connected with 1 Peter propose either that there was a Petrine group (his disciples or associates) who created the letter in Peter’s name or that some unknown Christian used Peter’s name to give authority to the advice he or she wanted to pass on to others. We evaluate these options below.

3

4

Introduction to 1 Peter

Karen Jobes argues strongly for the apostle’s involvement with the composition of the letter, pointing to Semitic interference in the Greek of 1 Peter.6 I agree with her about certain features being possible evidence for Semitic interference, but not with how that makes the case for Petrine authorship more plausible; indeed, Jobes does not think Peter could have composed this letter without a secretary. Once you take that step and assume that the author of the ideas was not the author of the words on the page, Semitic interference may only prove that whoever composed/wrote the letter was not a native Greek speaker. If Peter did not write it directly, then (a) he used a secretary, (b) someone else wrote it using his ideas, or (c) someone else wrote it using his name.

Peter Dictating to St. Mark This 11th-century ivory depicts the early Christian tradition that the Gospel of Mark was based on Peter’s teaching. Saint Peter dictating the Gospel to Saint Mark. South Italian (?). Ivory. 11th C. Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Great Britain. (Credit: Victoria & Albert Museum, London/Art Resource, NY)

a. Peter used a secretary. The secretary hypothesis is certainly possible, and the letter provides no evidence for or against the theory: if there was a secretary, then we do not know who it was. One might suppose that Silvanus/Silas, named in 5:12, who was Paul’s associate, helped Peter write the letter. Current consensus is that the formula used in 5:12 names Silvanus/Silas as the courier, not the secretary (see the discussion at 5:12). Maybe “Mark,” who sends greetings, is meant to be the secretary. If so, then “Mark” was clearly a different person from the author of the second Gospel, because the Greek of 1 Peter is much better than the Greek of Mark. If we hypothesize a secretary who was responsible for word choice, syntax, etc., then we are still left with the issue of objection 3 above: could the “apostle to the cirImage Not Available cumcised” tell Gentiles due to lack of digital rights. they were the people Please view the published of God without ever commentary or perform an Internet mentioning circumcision, search using the credit below. food laws, and other problematic issues?7 In my opinion, while one cannot rule out a secretary writing for St. Peter, it seems unlikely.

Introduction to 1 Peter

b. Someone else wrote it using Peter’s ideas. Many interpreters believe a Petrine group in Rome wrote after Peter’s death with the intent of comforting the Asian Christians. They used Petrine themes and teaching and constructed what they believed Peter would have said had he been alive.8 This is attractive, and the main argument offered by its supporters is that unless there is some actual connection between Peter and the Christians of Asia Minor, even if indirect, it is hard to say why Peter’s name is on the document instead of somebody else’s. However, the “actual connection” between Peter and the audience, strictly speaking, only exists within the letter. All we have is the letter’s presentation of Peter and the letter’s named audience, and there are ways to explain (see below) why someone might think Peter was the ideal author for a letter to Gentile Christians facing persecution. The author of 1 Peter may have known the apostle, may have heard traditions of Peter’s preaching, or may even have been a member of a group that admired Peter greatly. But nothing in the letter will prove this, and in the end this option explains the letter no better than option “c.” Some who hold to theory “b” want to take “Silas” and “Mark” literally, as well as the specific destination of the letter, making Peter the only pseudonymous element; in other words, Silas (Paul’s associate and a member of the Jerusalem church) and Mark (Peter’s associate in Rome, who had also traveled with Paul) delivered this letter, which they knew to be pseudonymous, to the congregations of Asia, Pontus/Bithynia, Galatia, and Cappadocia. This I find implausible. In this scenario, the letter is composed and delivered to the Asian churches before 90, within a generation of Peter’s death. All indications are that Peter died during Nero’s time in Rome and that Peter’s death was common knowledge among early Christians. So if Silas and/or Mark showed up in Ephesus with this letter, twentyfive to thirty years after Peter’s death, how would they explain its origin? “Peter wrote this to you guys a generation ago, but we are only just now getting around to bringing it”? Elliott suggests that the letter’s recipients would not have taken “Peter” literally, but would have known that it meant “this is what Peter would have said if he could have said it.”9 I do not think that is plausible either. Silas and Mark, who actually knew Peter, could have made the case for what Peter used to say or would have said, had he still been alive, without the need for pseudonymity. That is, the real Silas

5

6

Introduction to 1 Peter

and/or the real Mark could have written from their own points of view, quoting Peter and Paul as their companions, and had they decided to go to Asia Minor to exhort the troops, they would not have needed a letter claiming to be written by Peter. In fact, would not a letter that was (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) by “Peter” have been less effective than something like the Gospel of Mark—that is, a document thought to be based on Peter’s remembered teachings but without the artificial address to a bunch of people he did not know? If “Peter” is pseudonymous, then probably so are “Silvanus” and “Mark.” So may be the addressees, but we will come to that below. c. The letter is pseudonymous. Some unknown Christian wrote using Peter’s name.10 Why Peter? Because the author wanted to give the audience the sense that they were truly God’s chosen people, and Peter’s stance as apostle to Israel (vs. Paul’s status as apostle to the Gentiles) made him the most compelling advocate. A problem with this theory is that the letter does not make a strong case for Peter’s authorship, as one might expect a pseudonymous letter to do (cf. 2 Peter’s use of traditions about Peter). Another is that as far as we know, 1 Peter has always been accepted as authentic, in contrast to 2 Peter, which many ancient Christians doubted Peter wrote, and all the other Petrine literature (described below). A theory of pseudonymous authorship must explain why, if Peter did not write it, the letter came to be so widely valued and accepted. How plausible would it be for someone to show up with this letter, however many years after Peter’s death, and convince others that Peter wrote it? While we do not know the specifics of how this happened, we can imagine various plausible scenarios. Suppose, for instance, some Roman Christian in the late first century composed the letter. Rather than sending it to, say, the church in Ephesus, suppose it was first circulated in Rome with the explanation that it was a copy of the letter sent by the great apostle to the addressees. Once some or all of the Roman house-churches accepted it, it could then circulate with their backing to other areas, including the areas addressed (this was the way 3 Corinthians was introduced, according to Tertullian; see [Pseudonymity]). Or suppose it was composed not in Rome but in Asia, and that it first circulated not in major Christian centers like Ephesus but in one of the other areas addressed, where Christianity was newer and Christians were fewer.

Introduction to 1 Peter

Again, once it was accepted in one place, others would accept it on their recommendation. However it was first disseminated, the letter was a welcome and timely addition to the Gospels and the letters of Paul, which by the end of the first century were already widely used. First Peter addressed topics of immediate concern to Christians of that period, and did so in warm, encouraging ways. Advice about facing harassment, coming from a famous martyr who was known to have failed his Lord and yet to have learned how to be brave; advice about marriage from a married apostle; advice about discipleship from the chief spokesperson for the apostles—Peter was the ideal author for a letter like this one, and the letter was spot-on for its intended readers. What Might Readers Know about Peter?

Alone on the broad tiller-seat of The Abigail, a gigantic, hairy, deeplytanned Galilean of thirty-five—as busy with his awl as were his employees—occasionally looked up to survey their work . . . the huge, noisy, quick-tempered, lamentably irreverent son of Jonas . . . . All up and down the western shore, throughout Capernaum, Magdala, Bethsaida, and the hamlets between, and at the Roman fort, and among the servants at the great villa of the Tetrarch, and on the lake, and in the country round about, Simon the son of Jonas was referred to as the Big Fisherman.11

Thus does Lloyd Douglas picture Peter, the “Big Fisherman.” Douglas makes Peter a widower who lives with his mother-in-law Hannah. He is a successful businessman who started as a “mere roustabout and chore-boy on a dirty trawler” and who used his size, affability, and work ethic to become “master of the most prosperous and best known fleet on the lake.”12 Unfortunately, we have no physical descriptions of Peter from antiquity. In the secondcentury Acts of Paul (and Thecla), Paul gets tagged as short, bandy-legged, bald, hook-nosed, and unibrowed, quite possibly to remove any suggestion that the heroine Thecla was smitten by his matinee-idol looks, but this kind of verbal mug shot is not repeated for any of the other apostles. Those who first read 1 Peter will have learned some things about Peter from the letter itself (or had their prior knowledge con-

7

8

Introduction to 1 Peter

firmed), and likely will have known some things about Peter either from Paul’s letters, from one of the Gospels, or from early Christian preaching, where he would have been a character in stories told about Jesus. What the Letter Claims about Peter

Apostle. First Peter 1:1 names the author “apostle of Jesus Christ,” but nowhere else does the author expand on this or return to it. Fellow-elder. In 1 Peter 5:1-4, the writer exhorts elders as a “fellow-elder.” If the author means for the audience to take this literally, then it implies that he practices the same sort of ministry as some of his recipients. I say more about this in the comments on this section, but while “apostle” serves as an appeal to a Christbestowed authority, “fellow-elder” is an appeal to an authority arising from experience. The phrase implies not only “I know what I’m talking about because I’ve served as an elder,” but also “you can trust me because I’ve stood where you stand.” First Peter 5:1-4 explains the function of an elder as “shepherding the flock of God.” If readers knew the Gospel of John, or knew the traditions behind John 21, then they would recall Christ’s commission to Peter to “tend my sheep.” Thus, while not citing Jesus’ words outright, the writer may be alluding to them, expecting many of his readers to know the episode. Witness of Christ’s sufferings. Commentators normally point out that the Gospel tradition mostly implies that Peter was not present to watch Jesus die. Luke is the sole exception, probably meaning to include Peter and the rest of those who traveled with Jesus among the “friends” who watched from a distance (Luke 23:49). But all the Gospels name Peter as the one who denied knowing Jesus while Jesus was on trial, so his status as “witness” is somewhat sullied. If the recipients of 1 Peter knew any of the Gospels or even the traditions behind the Passion Narratives, they would have known Peter as an example of something close to apostasy—a helpful example, since Peter repented and rededicated himself to being a faithful witness. In addition, if they knew Acts, or if they accepted the traditional role of “apostle” as someone who knew the risen Christ and who gave testimony to others about him, they would perhaps

Introduction to 1 Peter

have read “witness of Christ’s sufferings” to mean “one who preaches about Jesus’ death and resurrection.” “Witness,” however, in addition to meaning “one who observes something and can testify to it,” was used in the first century by Christians to mean “one who dies for one’s faith.” If 1 Peter dates from the late first century, it is likely that the author means to appeal to Peter’s death as a martyr to give authority to the letter’s message. If “Peter” is writing it, obviously he cannot refer to his death as if it had happened, so “witness of Christ’s sufferings” may have been the author’s way to make the connection without creating an anachronism.13 Knows Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19) and Mark (Philemon 24—Mark sends greetings; Col 4:10, Mark the cousin of Barnabas—with “Paul” when he writes Colossians, but possibly coming to them; 2 Tim 4:11—get Mark and bring him). If the readers knew Paul’s letters or Acts, they would know Silas and Mark as Paul’s companions. Acts 15 also designates Silas as one of the carriers of the letter giving the results of the Apostolic Council, but nothing in Acts 15 strongly connects Peter to Silas. If they knew the tradition quoted by Eusebius from Papias (see [Eusebius on Mark and Peter]), readers would also associate Mark with Peter. Acts 12 also makes Mark’s mother’s house in Jerusalem the meeting place for the church to which Peter returned from his brief imprisonment. Some commentators who conclude that 1 Peter is pseudonymous nevertheless treat “Silvanus” and “Mark” as indicators that Paul’s companions, who were also part of Peter’s circle in Rome, composed the letter and took it to Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century.14 In the discussion above, I indicated why I doubt that the actual Silas and Mark were composing something in Peter’s name. However, the existence of a Gentile Christian group in Rome that considered Peter their premier apostle is not implausible; such a group existed in Corinth in Paul’s day. It is easy to see how many early Christian groups might have thought of Peter as the ideal source for Christian teaching, and the New Testament itself shows signs that as the first century progressed, groups of Christians elevated Peter’s role among Jesus’ followers. For example, compare Mark to Matthew: both Gospels present Peter as spokesperson for the Twelve, but Matthew, the later Gospel, names

9

10

Introduction to 1 Peter

Peter as the rock upon which Jesus would build the church and the recipient of the keys to the kingdom. John 20–21 sets the Johannine community’s premier teacher, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” alongside Peter. The Beloved Disciple is the one who lets Peter into the high priest’s courtyard, where Peter denies knowing Jesus and departs in shame; the Beloved Disciple, by contrast, stands beneath the cross to receive the commission to care for Jesus’ mother. The two famously race to the tomb; the Beloved Disciple gets there first, Peter enters first, and the Beloved Disciple is the first to understand and believe. The Risen Jesus predicts Peter’s martyrdom and commissions him to feed his sheep, but also corrects Peter’s curiosity about the Beloved Disciple’s time of death. The back and forth would not have been effective or necessary unless Peter’s status was already high among John’s intended audience. What the Audience Likely Knew apart from the Letter

His name. Paul mostly calls him “Cephas” but twice calls him “Peter” (Gal 2:7-8). The Gospels all say that Jesus named him “Peter” and that his birth name was Simon son of John (Mark 3:16; John 1:41-42). The author of 1 Peter names himself “Peter” without any explanation or further identification, and expects the audience will know who that is. Since “neither Kêpå< in Aramaic nor Petros in Greek was a normal proper name,”15 the author of 1 Peter is almost certainly either Peter, the apostle of Jesus, or someone claiming that identity. His status as apostle. Paul lists Peter as the recipient of the first resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:5) and says he had been appointed “apostle of the circumcised” (Gal 2:8). Mark 1:16-17 makes Peter and Andrew the first disciples called; John 1:35-42 tells the story a little differently, but still makes Andrew one of the first two, who then goes to bring Peter to Jesus. All the Gospels portray Peter as spokesperson for the Twelve; even John, whose hero is the Beloved Disciple, still has Peter answer for the group in 6:68, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.”16 Since “as far as we know the story of the ministry of Jesus was not told without mention of Simon,”17 we can presume that the audience for 1 Peter knew of Peter’s status as apostle in advance of receiving the letter.

Introduction to 1 Peter

He was married. According to Paul (1 Cor 9:5) and Mark (1:30), Peter was married, although both passages only say so indirectly. Mark’s story (paralleled in Matthew and Luke) is of Jesus’ healing Peter’s mother-in-law, while Paul lists Peter with Jesus’ brothers and all the other disciples as married and accustomed to traveling with “sister-wives”—probably meaning “wives who are also believers” but possibly “wives who live with their husbands in a celibate relationship.” Since being single would be more unusual for an adult Palestinian Jewish male, and since the tradition of Peter’s being married appears in two independent sources, we may presume that the audience for 1 Peter either knew or assumed that the author was married. He was martyred. An audience in the late first or early second century would know that Peter had died as a martyr. Here is the evidence: In John 21:18-19, Jesus predicts that Peter will be killed; “you will stretch out your hands,” coupled with “he said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God,” means the author of John 21 believed Peter had been crucified.18 Second Peter 1:13-15 probably refers back to this prediction, and it adds no new details. We cannot know whether the author of 2 Peter read John 21, but if 2 Peter dates from the first quarter of the second century, as most suppose, then it seems likely; in any case, I will not count 2 Peter as an independent witness to the tradition. First Clement 5:3-4 testifies to Peter’s martyrdom: “We should set before our eyes the good apostles. There is Peter, who because of unjust jealousy bore up under hardships not just once or twice, but many times; and having thus borne his witness he went to the place of glory that he deserved.” This text does not state where Peter died. But the author then describes Paul’s martyrdom, and sums up: “To these men who have conducted themselves in such a holy way there has been added a great multitude of the elect, who have set a superb example among us by the numerous torments and tortures they suffered because of jealousy” (6:1). It is possible, then, that the author, who writes from Rome, means for the readers to connect Peter and Paul with those who have died “among us.”19 Ignatius of Antioch’s To the Romans 4:2-3 does not clearly indicate knowledge of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome, but arguably implies it: “Pray Christ for me that by these means I may become God’s sacrifice. I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul. They

11

12

Introduction to 1 Peter

were apostles; I am a convict. They were at liberty; I am still a slave. But if I suffer, I shall be emancipated by Jesus Christ, and united to him, I shall rise to freedom.” Ignatius’s letter is meant to urge the Roman Christians to do nothing that would stand in the way of his becoming a martyr. The contrast he makes between his own status and that of Peter and Paul makes most sense if he believed both apostles had been martyred. In fact, if “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul” is meant to imply that they did give the Roman Christians orders, then Ignatius must think Peter had visited Rome, since there is no letter from Peter to Rome—only letters from Rome to elsewhere.20 The earliest clear statement that Peter died in Rome under Nero comes in Eusebius’s quotation of Dionysius of Corinth. Dionysius of Corinth, writing to the church in Rome around 170, says, “You also, by such an admonition, have bound together the planting of the Romans and Corinthians by Peter and Paul, for both of them also planted and taught us in our Corinth and also taught and suffered martyrdom in Italy at the same time” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.8). Tertullian, writing only a little later, says much the same: “At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom” (Scorpiace 15). It seems to me that the testimonies in John, 1 Clement, and Ignatius make it probable that a Christian in the last decade of the first century would know that Peter had been martyred.21 First Peter 5:13, indicating the letter originated from Rome, certainly fits with what was more clearly stated by later Christian writers, that Peter was martyred in Rome. First Peter 5:13 then is either a proof that the tradition connecting Peter with Nero’s persecution in Rome is no later than the first century22 or is part of the data that the second-century church used to create the tradition.23 In my opinion, Christians in the late first century would not know simply the fact of Peter’s martyrdom, but would always have told it as a story that involved a place; since Rome is the only place offered as the site of Peter’s death, it seems likely that 1 Peter’s audience would have assumed that Peter died in Rome.

Introduction to 1 Peter Authorship Issues and the Approach of this Commentary

As I indicated above, I find arguments against Peter’s authorship compelling—I do not think the apostle could have written 1 Peter. I also do not think the apostle could have dictated a letter addressing Gentiles as “a chosen race” without some discussion or qualification of the requirements of Torah, including the question of food offered to idols. In language and theology, 1 Peter is at home when held up against Christian literature of the late first and early second century: the Pastoral Epistles, Revelation, Hebrews, 1 Clement, the letters of Ignatius, and The Shepherd of Hermas all have points of commonality with 1 Peter. However, the evidence is that 1 Peter’s recipients accepted it as authentic and welcomed it as extremely useful. I propose to think of it, as much as one can, from their point of view: that is, how would a Gentile Christian in the late first or early second century have understood this letter if they believed that Peter had written it? This approach will take into account the letter’s compositional circumstances in the late first century, but will also read the letter sympathetically, as the author intended and, as far as we can tell, the way its original recipients received it. Throughout the commentary, then, I will refer to the author as “1 Peter,” reminding us that the audience only knew the writer through the letter, through oral traditions about Peter that circulated among early Christians, and through hearing Paul’s letters and the Gospels read aloud in worship. From this body of tradition, 1 Peter’s readers would have constructed a mental image of the author. The audience, as far as we can tell, thought they were listening to Peter, and from time to time in the discussion of the text, we will have occasion to think about what difference that made. For instance, the audience’s knowledge of Peter as both a martyr and a near-apostate would affect how they heard 1 Peter’s exhortations to bear up under suffering; I think the real author knew that and wrote accordingly. The Date of the Letter

If Peter wrote it or dictated it, then it probably comes from the early 60s, when we think Peter was in Rome working with the Christians there, but before Nero’s persecution began in 64 (see below). Since nothing in 1 Peter hints at the horrendous experi-

13

14

Introduction to 1 Peter

ences Christians went through at Nero’s hands, if Peter was directly connected to the letter, then it probably was written in advance of the great fire and the martyrdoms that followed. If, as I believe, Peter neither wrote it nor dictated it, then it probably was written in the late first or early second century. If 1 Clement quotes it, then it was probably written before 95. There are lots of similarities between the two letters, but the only places that contain several words in the same order are quotations from the LXX. For example, both 1 Peter 5:5 and 1 Clement 30:2 quote LXX Proverbs 3:34 as “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble-minded.” The LXX text has “the Lord” instead of “God,” and normally one would point to this as clear evidence that 1 Clement was reading 1 Peter’s revision of the LXX; but since James 4:6 has the same text exactly as 1 Peter and 1 Clement, we have to allow for the possibility that either there was a LXX textual variant or this version of the proverb was popular among Christians. I am undecided on whether 1 Clement used 1 Peter, but I think their many similarities indicate that they were written at roughly the same time. Polycarp’s letter To the Philippians much more clearly reproduces pieces of 1 Peter, as Eusebius pointed out.24 Polycarp was martyred sometime close to the middle of the second century, and scholars debate whether this letter was written somewhat earlier (around 140) or closer to his death (around 150–54). Second Peter, usually dated to the first quarter of the second century, knows of an earlier letter (“This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you,” 3:1). Thus the latest date for 1 Peter is probably 120–140, depending on how one dates these two letters. In the commentary, as already noted, I will consider 1 Peter alongside other Christian texts from the late first and early second centuries, without trying to pinpoint the date too precisely. Evidence for Persecution of Christians at the End of the First Century

First Peter refers often to suffering that Christians might have to experience, but is never specific about what sort of suffering he has in mind. They may suffer “for the name of Christ” (4:14) and “as a Christian” (4:16); they may be insulted (3:9, 4:14); but 1 Peter never says anything about physical persecution, imprisonment, or confiscation of property. This has made commentators over the

Introduction to 1 Peter

centuries wonder whether 1 Peter refers to any known instance of Roman suppression of Christianity. According to Roman historians and Christian tradition, Nero was the first Roman emperor to persecute Christians. According to Tacitus, he did so for personal reasons—first, to try to deflect blame for the devastating fire in Rome from himself to “a class hated for their abominations,” and second, because he was cruel: “it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual” (Ann. 15.44). Tacitus states that the persecution went in stages, with some initial arrests followed by mass arrests of those whom the first group identified (no doubt under torture). Suetonius, writing about the same events, had no sympathy for those put to death: “punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a set of men adhering to a novel and mischievous superstition” (Nero 16). Tacitus’s descriptions of people torn to death by beasts, crucified, or burned makes this persecution sound grim indeed. But the persecutions, which began after mid-July 64, when the fire struck, could not have extended past June 68, when Nero was assassinated; most assume the killings lasted for only a few months, and there is no evidence that they happened in any place but Rome. Between 64 and 112, there are only hints and occasional statements about persecution. Hebrews is usually dated as roughly contemporary with 1 Peter, between 70–95.25 Hebrews 10:32-34 reads, “But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great struggle of suffering, sometimes being treated as a spectacle for insults and persecution, sometimes becoming partners with those who had such a manner of life. For you suffered with those in bonds and welcomed with joy the seizure of your possessions, knowing that you had a better and abiding property.” This sounds bad, but not as bad as Tacitus’s description of what Nero did, particularly when Hebrews 12:4, “you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood,” is factored in. Thus commentators reason that the author of Hebrews probably refers to some kind of local persecution that included insults, harassment, imprisonment, and confiscation of property. But Hebrews 13:3, “Remember those who are in prison . . . [remember] those who are being tortured,” might point both to attempts to suppress the Christian movement through imprisonment and to torture of some of its members to gain information about others (see the reference in Pliny’s letter

15

16

Introduction to 1 Peter

below). The evidence of Hebrews is thus equivocal, seeming at one point to rule out physical abuse and at another to admit it. Revelation is also usually dated to around 90–95, and is addressed to Christians in seven cities of Asia Minor. Despite its dire predictions of rivers of blood and mass destructions, the only martyr named is Antipas (Rev 2:13). The author writes to the believers at Smyrna, “do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, where you will be tested and have tribulation for ten days” (2:10). By contrast, the Laodicean Christians think they are rich and prosperous and in need of nothing; they need to wake up and understand their spiritual poverty (3:15-19). When the fifth seal is opened, it reveals martyrs under the altar of God who are rewarded and told that their numbers will grow (6:9-11). Those who will not worship the image of the beast with ten horns and seven heads are killed by the second beast (13:15). A special resurrection is reserved for those who give their lives for the sake of Jesus (20:4-6). Even more significantly, the central image for Jesus in Revelation, as Mitchell Reddish has argued, is of the “faithful witness,” or martyr, whose death atones for sins and also serves as an example for all his followers.26 There is no question, then, that John believes that some have died for the sake of Christ (Antipas, for example), and that those who remain faithful will die for the sake of Christ (those soon to be martyred), but it is not clear that he claims that people are dying for their faith in his day. The situation thus seems to be that while some believers in some of these churches have suffered for their faith, others have not. John the Revelator wants his readers to withdraw more radically and publicly from Roman life, refusing the “mark of the beast” and suffering the consequences; but this seems to be what he is preaching, not what they are practicing. First Clement was written from Rome to Corinth and is usually dated toward the end of Domitian’s reign (95–96), making it roughly contemporary with both Revelation and 1 Peter. First Clement is the first book to use Hebrews; some think it uses 1 Peter as well, but that is not as clear (see above). It opens with “Because of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and setbacks we have experienced, we realize that we have been slow to turn our attention to the matters causing disputes among you, loved ones . . .” (1:1). The author does not elaborate, but this sounds like some form of perse-

Introduction to 1 Peter

cution that arose suddenly and then died away, so that the author now has time and freedom to write to another Christian community about their issues. Pliny, the governor of Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan in 112 about what he was doing with Christians in his province. Because the letter is so significant to the interpretation of 1 Peter, I reproduce most of it here. It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. For who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. I have hesitated a great deal on the question whether there should be distinction of ages; whether the weak should have the same treatment as the more robust; whether those who recant should be pardoned, or whether a man who has ever been a Christian should gain nothing by ceasing to be such; whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to the name. Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. There were others who displayed a like madness and whom I reserved to be sent to Rome, since they were Roman citizens. Thereupon the usual result followed; the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose, together with the statues of the deities; and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do. Others named by the informer first said that they were Christians and then denied it; declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some having recanted three years or more before and one or two as long ago as twenty years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt

17

18

Introduction to 1 Peter or error had amounted only to this, that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of this ceremony it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food; but it was ordinary and harmless food, and they had ceased this practice after my edict in which, in accordance with your orders, I had forbidden secret societies. I thought it the more necessary, therefore, to find out what truth there was in this by applying torture to two slave-women, who were called deaconesses. But I found nothing but a depraved and extravagant superstition, and I therefore postponed my examination and had recourse to you for consultation. The matter seemed to me to justify my consulting you, especially on account of the number of those imperiled; for many persons of all ages and classes and of both sexes are being put in peril by accusation, and this will go on. The contagion of this superstition has spread not only in the cities, but in the villages and rural districts as well; yet it seems capable of being checked and set right. There is no shadow of doubt that the temples, which have been almost deserted, are beginning to be frequented once more, that the sacred rites which have been long neglected are being renewed, and that sacrificial victims are for sale everywhere, whereas, till recently, a buyer was rarely to be found. From this it is easy to imagine what a host of men could be set right, were they given a chance of recantation.27

Some inferences from Pliny’s letter: 1. He accepts the testimony from some of those who denied their faith that they had done so as long as twenty years before (perhaps some were lying about being longtime apostates, but let us assume that Pliny was not fooled by all the people all the time). That would be around 92, so, allowing for exaggeration and/or rounding of numbers, it would argue that in the last decade of the first century, some Christians gave up their faith for unknown reasons probably unrelated to official persecutions. We should keep that in mind—apostasy happened, and for many causes. 2. Pliny wrote the letter in 112 to make certain that what he had been doing was correct. As most point out, this means there was no official Roman policy yet, and so we should not think of planned arrests or exposures of Christians, but of sporadic and episodic

Introduction to 1 Peter

events that depended on finger-pointing by enemies and neighbors. At the same time, Pliny is asking for Trajan either to bless or to correct what Pliny had already been doing probably since he took office in 111. He also presumes that there might be standard practices of which he is unaware, since he has never witnessed trials of Christians. So while Pliny’s letter indicates that there was no standard Roman policy about Christians yet, it does not prove that killing Christians was novel—only that Pliny had never been present when it happened and so needed to ask about process. 3. Trajan’s reply to Pliny agrees that there is no fixed process, and that mass or anonymous accusations are to be ignored. The emperor writes, “They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proven guilty, they are to be punished”28 unless they recant and worship the gods. 4. Pliny admits confusion over whether the accusation of being a Christian is enough, absent any other crime; but he acts as if the name is enough, and Trajan appears to support him in this. Thus in 110 in Bithynia, one could be killed simply for being a Christian who refused to recant, provided one had raised enough ire among one’s neighbors to be publicly exposed. 5. Regarding Pliny’s torture of two “slave-women . . . called deaconesses,” it should be noted that the testimony of slaves was only admissible in court if it was obtained by torture. There is nothing in his letter to indicate that he, as a Roman governor, was engaging in torture, as Nero did, because he enjoyed it. Instead, his preference seems to be for quick disposal of cases: offer them a chance to recant, and kill them if they do not. Thus, if Pliny’s example was paradigmatic, at this stage in history Christians could keep themselves and their property intact by recanting. That must have been a powerful incentive to do so. 6. The “anonymous pamphlet,” together with Pliny’s judgment that the movement had been spreading, suggests that there was a fair amount of public antipathy toward Christians. Perhaps many others shared Pliny’s judgment that Christianity was a “depraved and extravagant superstition.” Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was arrested at roughly the same time that Pliny wrote this letter. But instead of being killed locally, Ignatius was sent under guard from Antioch to Troas, where presumably he was put on a ship and taken to Rome. While he was

19

20

Introduction to 1 Peter

traveling, he was allowed to correspond and to meet with local Christian officials: Damas, bishop of Magnesia, plus Bassus and Apollonius, elders of that church; Polybius, bishop of Trallia; and Burrhus, Crocus, Onesimus, Euphus, and Fronto, all of the Ephesian church; Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; etc. He named Philo, the “deacon from Cilicia,” and Rheus Agathopous, “one of the elect who is following me from Syria,” as people in his entourage. It is clear, then, that sometimes even a publicly identified Christian scheduled for execution received visits and exchanged correspondence with other Christians without resulting in their deaths. To sum up: just after the turn of the century, a Christian who was vocal enough about his/her faith, who was unpopular enough with his/her neighbors, and who refused to recant when given the opportunity could be killed. If we can trust the Revelator’s judgment that Antipas was a martyr,29 and if those imprisoned and tortured in Hebrews were being persecuted for their faith, then we can say that these conditions prevailed at the end of the first century. Persecution does not appear to have happened regularly or systematically; Revelation is evidence for how Christians could live comfortably in their environment—much to the Revelator’s disgust! A Christian who was willing to sacrifice to the gods when asked would not have needed to worry. And if a Christian housechurch was willing to tolerate their members attending public festivals honoring the gods or the ancestors, or participating in annual banquets of trade or burial societies held in pagan temples—then they could probably go about their lives unmolested, or suffering nothing worse than name-calling. This, I presume, was the setting in which 1 Peter was written, and it goes a long way toward explaining why the author sometimes says Christians might, perhaps, suffer and at other times describes suffering as something that is almost certain. Themes of 1 Peter

Suffering. The issue of suffering and how to think about it pervades this short letter, and 1 Peter consistently links the readers’ suffering (or potential suffering) to what Jesus endured. Throughout the letter, “suffering” means things inflicted on believers for no reason other than that they follow Jesus. In a couple of places (2:18-20;

Introduction to 1 Peter

4:15), 1 Peter states that readers should not complain if they are disciplined for doing wrong; that counts for nothing with God. The author also never addresses the sort of suffering that comes from illness or grief or natural disasters. The letter’s focus is on the evils that some unbelievers inflict on believers, and on how believers should interpret their experiences. • In 1:6-7, suffering is compared to how precious metals are refined in fire to remove their impurities. Thus if it has to happen to you, you can think of hard times as having some benefit: suffering demonstrates the genuine character of your faith. First Peter links this to Christ’s experience in 1:18-19 by noting that the readers were brought to God not by the wealth of precious metals, but by Christ’s death, infinitely more valuable to God. • In 2:18-25, 1 Peter takes up the issue of how slaves suffer undeserved beatings from cruel masters. The author says Christ’s patient endurance of undeserved cruelty is an example for the slaves (and other readers) to imitate. Christ’s death is interpreted through the lens of the Servant of God in Isaiah 53: he bore our sins; his wounds heal us. • 3:8–4:6 is a long section about right conduct. It includes exhortations to practice non-retaliation (3:9), to be unafraid of those who threaten (3:14), and to be ready to explain one’s manner of life (3:15-16). If this leads to suffering, then it is better to have suffered now for right living than to suffer God’s judgment later for sin. Christ’s example of having gone to the cross but having been resurrected and exalted is given as a reason to be done with sin and follow God’s will. • In 4:12-19, the author states that since the end of time and the judgment are near, we can think of suffering as God’s decision to begin judgment with God’s own household. If, then, one is reviled for bearing Christ’s name, one can think of this as a blessing, since it is also a reminder of our rewards to come. Here, the author argues that we are sharing Christ’s sufferings and should entrust ourselves to God as he did. • Finally, in 5:6-11, 1 Peter encourages readers to resist the devil, just as other Christians in other parts of the world are doing. After a brief period of suffering, the author promises, God—

21

22

Introduction to 1 Peter

who has promised the readers eternal life in Christ—will provide all that they need to endure. First Peter’s first readers at the end of the first and beginning of the second century will have found this material timely and helpful. For those readers who were not slaves, most or all the kinds of suffering 1 Peter addresses—slanders, insults, possible physical harm—will have been the direct consequence of deciding to become a Christian (all slaves were potential victims of abuse regardless of their faith). For those folks, the easiest thing to do would have been to renounce their faith and take up their former way of life, rejoining the majority religions practiced in their area and reconnecting with parts of their culture they had lost. First Peter offers reasons to stick it out and ways to think of the pain as potential gain. Holiness. The words for “holy,” “holiness,” “sanctify,” etc., appear many times in 1 Peter, particularly in the first two chapters (see discussions at 1:14-16 and 2:9), but the theme is wider than those words: • In 2:11-17, the readers are to shun fleshly passions and maintain a good manner of life “among the Gentiles.” Their publicly visible virtue will help to squash slanders against believers. • Readers are urged to turn from evil (3:11), to be zealots for the good (3:13), to have a good conscience (3:16), to be done with sin, and to be committed to God’s will (4:1-2). • The admonition not to be criminals (4:15) fits under this rubric, however one explains it—a reaction to some of the slanders about Christians, or hyperbole meant to stress how seriously readers are to approach their new life. In his various “be holy,” “do good,” and “better to suffer for doing good” passages, the author sometimes suggests that their conduct could have the effect of reducing or eliminating their suffering (2:15; 3:13), but in other places is frank about how sometimes the righteous suffer anyway. The bottom-line motivation for holiness thus has is “be holy, for I am holy” (1:16); the readers should want to be more like God as revealed in Christ.

Introduction to 1 Peter

Community. First Peter never uses the word “church” (ekkl∑sia), which is remarkable but not unprecedented. Although Paul scarcely writes a paragraph that does not contain the word, it does not appear in Mark, Luke, John, 1 or 2 John or Jude, and only once in James (5:14), and in Hebrews it does not appear to mean a local congregation (2:12; 12:23). The images in 1 Peter for the community of Jesus’ followers include “sojourners” (1:1); the cluster in 2:4-10 (spiritual house, royal priesthood, chosen race, etc.); “resident aliens and sojourners” (2:11); “house/household of God” (4:17); and “flock” (5:2). • The language of sojourners and resident aliens is offered as an interpretation of the readers’ experience of otherness. As followers of Jesus, they were expected to abstain from the worship of the gods, honors paid to ancestors and household spirits, and celebrations honoring the divinized emperors. Since most of these readers were not ethnically Jewish, they had no easy answers to give their families and neighbors for why they were abstaining from practices they must have previously joined in as a matter of course. • The cluster of terms in 2:4-10 offers an alternate interpretation of their otherness. They had traded worship at recognized and revered temples and shrines for worship in private homes and apartments; pagan writers typically characterize such behavior with terms like “depraved and extravagant superstition.” First Peter characterizes their small unimpressive assemblies as the construction of a glorious temple made of living stones built on the true cornerstone, Christ—built so that they, a royal priesthood, may offer pleasing sacrifices to God. • As God’s house or household, readers must face up to the hard side of faith, the willingness to endure suffering in order to belong (4:17). It is the end, and so the suffering may not last long, but God has chosen to start the judgment with (or in) God’s own house. In this experience, the readers should remember that they are not alone, since their brothers and sisters elsewhere are also enduring hard times (5:9). Expected Themes that Are Absent from 1 Peter

Charity. Although the author urges his readers to be hospitable (4:9), he says nothing about giving alms or caring for the poor; in

23

24

Introduction to 1 Peter

fact, 1 Peter is silent on the subject of money, except to tell women not to wear jewelry or fancy clothes (3:3). The absence is striking when 1 Peter is compared to James or the Didache but is more like Hebrews (13:2, Do not neglect to show hospitality) and 1 John (3:17-18 urges readers to give to needy brothers and sisters, but the letter does not urge charity more broadly). Food. First Peter, even though it seems to be written to Gentiles and calls them a chosen race, includes no discussion about whether Gentiles should observe Jewish food laws. Not only that, but the letter also has no advice about eating food offered to idols. These issues continued to be problematic for early believers, as evidenced by 1 Timothy 4:3 (condemning those who demand abstinence from food), Revelation 2:14, 20 (eating food offered to idols is an evil practice taught by false prophets and opposed by the author), Hebrews 13:9 (do not be seduced by false teachings about food regulations), Didache 6:3 (“Concerning food: bear what you are able, but especially keep away from food offered to idols, since is it is the service of dead gods”), and Barnabas 10 (the food laws were never meant to be taken literally, but warn us against various kinds of evil people). Whether the writer of 1 Peter agreed with Paul and his disciples that all food, including idol-food, is permissible as long as it does not harm the faith of one’s brother or sister, or with the more conservative believers who forbade eating idol-food, it is odd that he never offered any advice on this, especially since it would have affected his readers so directly. One can never make much of an author’s silence on something, but this silence, since it must represent a deliberate choice, may indicate a willingness to be non-confrontational about this issue—maybe 1 Peter was allowing local congregations to decide for themselves. Sex. Perhaps nothing is as indicative of the positive, irenic tone of 1 Peter as what the letter does not say about sex. Almost every early Christian vice list includes the words for general sexual misconduct (porneia) and adultery (moicheia), and early Christian letter writers often exhort their audiences in the strongest possible terms to stay away from sexual sins. First Peter may include sexual sins in the vice list in 4:3—it depends on how one interprets the first two words—but the surprising thing is that we have to guess at what he means. For much more explicit language and warnings, compare

Introduction to 1 Peter

Hebrews 13:4, Revelation 3:20-21, James 4:1-10 (where “adultery” is used metaphorically but boldly, to scold the readers), 2 Peter 2:14, Jude 5-7, and Didache 3:3 (“my child, do not be lustful, for lust leads to sexual misconduct; be neither foul-mouthed nor lecherous”). Like the issue of food offered to idols, the issue of sexual morality was certain to have been important and problematic for many of 1 Peter’s readers. The letter’s silence is emblematic of the author’s strategy of stressing how well the readers are doing in their faith. Other Petrine Literature

Peter’s name appears on several other documents besides 1 Peter. This is not a complete accounting of them all, but a brief description of the second-century Petrine literature to which I will refer in the commentary. Second Peter is generally thought to refer to 1 Peter in 2 Peter 3:1 and to incorporate sections of Jude in its second chapter. Because it depends on two earlier letters, and because it refers to Paul’s letters as if they are collected and regarded as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16), 2 Peter is generally dated to the early second century. By contrast to 1 Peter, 2 Peter took much longer to be regarded as Scripture. It is not included in the Muratorian Canon (150–200), and Eusebius lists it as “disputed,” meaning that in the first half of the fourth century, a significant portion of the church did not accept 2 Peter. The Apocalypse of Peter was written probably in the first half of the second century, since it is included in the Muratorian Canon. It recounts, in vivid language, the punishments of the wicked in hell, and gives a much briefer and less specific account of the rewards for the righteous in heaven. In this document, Peter is presented as ideally suited to restore Christians who had defected, since Christ had restored him after his denial. It is written as an expansion of the episode in the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus, having predicted the destruction of the temple, is asked by the disciples to give more information about the timing. In this version, Peter asks for even more explanation, and Christ reveals the fates of sinners. Like Ezra in 4 Ezra, Peter thinks all the suffering is sad, and says to Jesus that it would have been better had the sinners never been born. The revelations of hell are then offered as proofs of God’s perfect mercy and justice, and indeed, they do have a “punishment fits the crime”

25

26

Introduction to 1 Peter

feel to them (see [Judgment Scenes in Apocalypse of Peter]). Apocalypse of Peter was composed in Greek, widely used by ancient Christians, and translated into other languages (an Ethiopic version survives). The Gospel of Peter probably also dates from the first half of the second century, and was also composed in Greek. The copies that survive seem to be damaged at the beginning; the text in its current condition begins with Pilate having washed his hands after condemning Jesus to be crucified. There is no way to tell whether Gospel of Peter was only a passion account or contained an entire life of Jesus, but most interpreters lean toward the first option. Most interpreters also think it draws from and depends on the canonical Gospels (although J. D. Crossan famously argued that it independently preserves remnants of an original passion account). It is anti-Jewish, like most second-century Christian literature, and includes the earliest Christian account of Jesus’ emergence from the tomb on Easter Sunday. The best-known parts of the text are the cry from the cross (“My power, my power, why have you abandoned me?”) and the resurrection scene, where Jesus comes out supported by two angels, his head reaching into the heavens, and followed by a levitating, speaking cross. The document was condemned for Docetic tendencies by Serapion, bishop of Antioch (c. 190), according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.12.3-6), but an ostracon dated to the seventh or eighth century shows it was even then valued by some Egyptian believers.30 The Acts of Peter was composed in Greek in the second half of the second century. It exists in multiple ancient translations, testament to its popularity. Like the other apocryphal Acts, this one shows the hero Peter able to do amazing miracles: he makes a smoked fish swim, he flies, he heals, he raises a boy from the dead. Peter also gets in trouble for preaching abstinence from sex, just like Paul in the Acts of Paul (and Thecla). The last part of the Acts, which may have circulated separately at some point, tells about Peter’s martyrdom, including the Quo Vadis legend as well as the detail that Peter was crucified upside down.

Notes 1. Martin Luther, “Foreword” to Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter, vol. 30 of Luther’s Works (trans. Martin H. Bertram; St. Louis MO: Concordia, 1967) 3.

Introduction to 1 Peter 2. Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: MacMillan, 1952) 1, 4. 3. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.3. 4. Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 37. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 138–48, presents a complete list of possible or plausible citations of 1 Peter, with the author’s judgment on how certain they are. 5. So also David Horrell, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peterborough UK: Epworth, 1998) 7; M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 95–96. 6. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) 5–19, 325–38. 7. The best recent commentary arguing that the Apostle Peter was directly connected to the composition of 1 Peter is Jobes, 1 Peter. Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 4–11, also leans toward Peter having written it, but agrees that the evidence against Petrine authorship is strong. 8. John H Elliott, 1 Peter (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 118–30; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997) 705–22; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 41–43; Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Interpretation; Louisville KY: John Knox, 1995) 12.; Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter (trans. Peter H. Davids; Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) 32–39. 9. Elliott, 1 Peter, 125. 10. M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 30–37; Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000) 9–11. 11. Lloyd C. Douglas, The Big Fisherman (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948) 115–16. 12. Ibid., 117. 13. So Karl P. Donfried, “Peter,” ABD 5.262; Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973) 153; Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994) 120. 14. Elliott, 1 Peter, 127–30. 15. Elliott, 1 Peter, 324. Perkins, Peter: Apostle, 40–41, qualifies this: Kêpå< appears to be a name in an Aramaic text from Elephantine dated c. 416 BC, but there remain no first-century examples in Aramaic, and there are no clear pre-Christian examples of Petros in Greek. The point still stands—the use of the word for “rock” as a name or nick-name was apparently uncommon in Aramaic and Greek in pre-Christian times, so that the author of the epistle is either the apostle or someone claiming to be the apostle. 16. Brown et al., Peter in the New Testament, 159–60. 17. Ibid., 159. 18. Colin G. Kruse, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2003) 392–93; so Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1972) 636–37; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1970) 1118.

27

28

Introduction to 1 Peter 19. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 10–11; so also Elliott, 1 Peter, 884–86. 20. Daniel William O’Connor, Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969) 20–22, 50; Raymond E Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1983) 97. 21. So Brown et al., Peter in the New Testament, 153; see discussion at 5:1. 22. So Perkins, Peter: Apostle, 37–38. 23. F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, The Man and the Writings (JSNTS 239; Sheffield UK: Sheffield, 2003) 144. 24. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.14.9: “But Polycarp, in the epistle to the Philippians, still extant, has made use of certain testimonies taken from the first epistle of Peter.” 25. Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 67–71; Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 6–9, 298–99. 26. Mitchell G. Reddish, “Martyr Christology in the Apocalypse,” JSNT 33 (1988): 86; Reddish, Revelation (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001) 24–25. 27. Pliny, Ep. 10.96; translation in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1977) 3–4. 28. Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (2 vols; New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2.583. 29. Doubtless Antipas died, but we only have John’s interpretation that he was martyred. Perhaps whoever caused his death would have given another reason for it. 30. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (New York: Oxford, 2003) 24–25. The ostracon has a stick figure on one side, labeled “Saint Peter the Evangelist,” and the inscription “Let us venerate him; let us receive his Gospel” on the other.

Outline of 1 Peter Chapter One: Called by God to Holiness 1:1-3 Greeting 1:3-12 Opening Sentence 1:13-25 Hope and Holiness, Reverence and Love Chapter Two: Stones, Sojourners, and Slaves 2:1-10 Living Stones 2:11-17 Alien Life 2:18-25 How to Be a Slave Chapter Three: Conduct at Home and in the World 3:1-7 How to Be a Wife or Husband 3:8-22 How to Handle Evil Treatment Chapter Four: The End of Suffering 4:1-11 What the Neighbors Think 4:12-19 Unperplexed by Fire Chapter Five: Closing Advice from Peter the Elder 5:1-5 Feed My Sheep 5:6-11 Stay Awake, Fight the Lion (and Other Helpful Advice) 5:12-14 Conclusion

Called by God to Holiness 1 Peter 1

COMMENTARY The Greeting, 1:1-2

“Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of the Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you.” Author The author begins his letter much like most Greek writers did, by giving first his name, then the names of the recipients, and then by adding a greeting. Here are some examples of the common letter beginning, taken from Greek letters of the late republic/early empire: “Heraklas to Horos and Tachonis, greetings and good health”; “Apollonius to his very dear friend Dioscurides, greeting”; “Chairas to his dearest Dionysius, many greetings and continual health.”1 Paul’s letters had amplified this standard form. First, he made the greeting into a blessing offered in the name of Jesus. Instead of the bare word “greetings,” Paul typically offered his readers “grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Second, Paul transformed the naming of sender and recipient into the letter’s opening rhetorical move. For instance, Philippians—a friendship letter—begins with Paul’s adopting a low-status title and putting higher-sounding titles with the church’s name: “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; grace and peace to you . . .” (Phil 1:1-2). By contrast, Galatians—a letter in which Paul will rebuke the readers repeatedly—opens with heavy emphasis on Paul’s status and none at all on theirs: “Paul, apostle—neither from humans nor by a human, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father

32

1 Peter 1

who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers with me, to the churches of Galatia; grace and peace to you . . .” (Gal 1:1-3). The author of 1 Peter names himself “Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ.” Throughout the first four chapters of the letter, the author assumes this to be sufficient support for his exhortations and commands. Only at 5:1 does he reinforce his authority as “fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ.” There are no appeals to “as Jesus often told me” or “as the one 2 Peter’s Claims to Authenticity 1 Peter makes no claims to have heard Jesus, nor does it who was appointed to be the make any specific links to stories the audience might have leader of the disciples.” [2 Peter’s heard from the Gospels. By contrast, 2 Peter does, referencing both Claims to Authenticity] The contrast the prediction of Peter’s death at the end of John and the story of the with Paul’s self-references is transfiguration in the Synoptic Gospels. instructive. Paul often appeals to Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you his personal experiences with and know them already and are established in the truth that has come to knowledge of the recipients of his you. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus letters; 1 Peter never does. Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after Consider Colossians and Romans, my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. For we letters written to communities did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitPaul had not personally visited. nesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Paul (or whoever wrote Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, Colossians) has “heard of ” the saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with faith of the recipients from him on the holy mountain. (2 Pet 1:12-18) “Epaphras our beloved fellowslave” (Col 1:3-8). He tells the readers, “I want you to know how much I am struggling for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for all who have not seen me face to face” (Col 2:1); he assures them that although he is not physically present with them, he prays for them and is present with them in spirit. Paul begins Romans by describing how he has heard about their faith, how he prays for them, and how he hopes at last to come to see them (Rom 1:8-14), and returns to this at the end of the letter (Rom 15:14-33). First Peter gives the reader no hints about whether the author had visited the recipients or knew any of them personally—there is neither “I’ve never seen you, but I’d like to” nor “I’ve heard so much about you from Silvanus” nor even “I pray for you all the time.” Most commentators assume—in my opinion correctly— from the author’s silence on this matter that author and audience have no direct connection, and that the author knows nothing about the specific circumstances of any of the house-churches in any of these regions.2

1 Peter 1

This is not an encouraging beginning! A stranger giving five chapters of advice to people whose circumstances he does not know—who does he think he is? Well, Peter! The letter comes from someone who considers “Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ” to be qualified to speak to any Christian audience about the nature of the Christian life, and without any further justification. [I’m Simon Peter] The author is counting on the audience knowing full well who Peter is and what Peter had experienced, and that, especially on the topics the letter will address, Peter can be presumed to be an authority (see the discussion in the introduction on what a late first-century audience would likely know about Peter).

33

I’m Simon Peter In this scene from Wally Lamb’s novel I Know This Much Is True, a schizophrenic man, Thomas Birdsey, is having a conversation with his psychiatrist, whom he calls Mrs. Gandhi. She speaks first: “Mr. Birdsey . . . I’m wondering if I may call you Thomas?” “No, you may not.” “No?” “I’m Simon Peter.” . . . “When you say you are Simon Peter, Mr. Birdsey, do you mean by that you emulate him or that you feel you are his physical embodiment?” [Thomas then quotes from memory the “rock” passage from Matthew 16:17-19.] Thomas stopped, came up for air. “Are you following me, Mrs. Gandhi? I’m a fisher of souls! The keeper of the keys! It’s not my idea, it’s God’s. How do you like them apples, Suzie Q?”

Audience Wally Lamb, I Know This Much Is True (New York: HarperCollins, First Peter is fond of complex phrases, and the 1998) 235–36. first is no slouch: “To the elect sojourners of the Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in (or by) the sanctification of the Spirit, for Arrest of Peter obedience and sprinkling with The Sarcophagus of Marcus Claudianus (ca. 330–335, Palazzo the blood of Jesus Christ.” Massimo, Rome): Detail, The Arrest “Elect resident aliens” is not of Peter. (Credit: Dick Stracke / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA3.0) 3 quite an oxymoron, but close. “Elect” means chosen, and This fourth-century marble calls up the rich history of carving decorated the sarcophagus of Marcus Israel. “I have chosen you” Claudianus. Peter is (LXX Isa 41:9) names the depicted, as usual, as an great mystery of God’s dealolder man, balding and ings with God’s people. “The bearded, but strong and active, as one might expect Lord chose you and elected of a fisherman. you, not because you were more numerous than all the nations, for you were fewer than all the nations, but because the Lord loved you” (LXX Deut 7:7-8). “Elect,” choice, special—all of those are words of privilege. “Sojourners,” on the other hand, names someone often without privilege: a person living in a country not his or her own, subject to the antipathies so often directed at foreigners, and with limited

34

1 Peter 1

access to legal protection. The word used here is parepid∑mos, meaning “stranger” or “foreigner.” It is used again at 2:11 as a synonym to paroikos, which means “resident alien”—a person living in a foreign place. The NRSV translation “exiles” is incorrect—the word does not connote a person who has been sent away from home and prevented from returning, but Exile one who lives away, whether by choice or by Who is he? An exile. Which must not be necessity. [Exile] The LXX uses parepid∑mos confused with, allowed to run into, all the twice, both in parallel to the more common other words that people throw around: émigré, expatriate, refugee, immigrant, silence, cunning. paroikos: Exile is a dream of glorious return. Exile is a vision of revolution: Elba, not St. Helena. It is an endless paradox: looking forward by always looking back. The exile is a ball hurled high into the air. He hangs there, frozen in time, translated into a photograph; denied motion, suspended impossibly above his native earth, he awaits the inevitable moment at which the photograph must begin to move, and the earth reclaim its own.

1 Peter’s uses of the terms paroikos and parepid∑mos exclude any notion of a return to a place from which the readers have been forced. They are not exiles, since they are not waiting to go home—instead, Christ, and their gathered community, embodying Christ for them, is their home. Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses (New York: Random House, 2008) 211–12.

• In LXX Genesis 23:4-6, Abraham negotiates to buy a burial place for Sarah: “I am a paroikos and a parepid∑mos among you.” The Hittites protest, “No, Lord, but listen—you are our king from God among us; bury your dead in our chosen [same word as “chosen” in 1 Pet 1:1] burial places.” • LXX Psalm 38:13-14 (=39:12-13) reads, “Hear my prayer, O Lord, and attend to my tears. Do not remain silent, because I am a paroikos before you and a parepid∑mos, just as all my ancestors. Release me so that I may revive before I go away, never more to exist.”

In the first case, Abraham is a long-term resident foreigner in truth, owning no real estate in the land where he pitches his tents and pastures his flocks. In the second case, the psalmist composed a lament appropriate for a serious illness. The pray-er, who admits that the illness is God’s punishment for sins, nevertheless hopes for an easing of God’s powerful hand before he or she expires. Being paroikos and parepid∑mos is not, or not necessarily, literal; it is part of the supplicant role the pray-er takes, linking himself or herself to the sacred past and to the reality that one can control neither illness nor God. The author of the psalm constructed it so that those using it to beseech God for help during a severe illness would acknowledge how helpless they are unless God champions them, as God did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

1 Peter 1

In the world of the author of 1 Peter, “resident aliens” were rarely welcomed, although their presence was sometimes an economic boon to the places where they lived: I cannot bear, Romans, a Greek Rome; and yet, how small a portion of our dregs is from Greece! Long since Syrian Orontes has flowed into the Tiber, and has brought with it its languages and manners.4 Look at the crowds for whom, vast as Rome is, there is hardly sufficient housing accommodations: the majority of them are aliens in a sense. They have flooded in from the country towns of Italy, in fact from all over the world . . . Rome offers high rewards for good qualities and bad alike; and so every sort of being has come here. Call them up and ask them one by one where they come from. Most of them, you will find, have left home and come to Rome, the greatest and loveliest city in the world—but not theirs.5

Resident aliens could be, and were from time to time, summarily deported. We know more about the deportations from the city of Rome than from any other place simply because histories of what went on in Rome survived, but we should take these removals as indicative of what probably sometimes happened in other places as well. For instance, Rome sometimes deported foreigners when they were at war with the group’s native home (Macedonians, 171 BC; Germans, AD 9); or because a member of the group did or supposedly did something problematic to a well-placed Roman (Jews and Egyptians in AD 19); or because the group was creating problems for public order (Jews in AD 48).6 In addition to the threat of removal that made their status always impermanent, resident aliens had various other sorts of restrictions: Excluded from voting and landholding privileges as well as from the chief civic offices and honors, they enjoyed only limited legal protection, were restricted in regard to intermarriage [i.e., with citizens], commerce, transmission of property, and land tenure, could be pressed into military service, and were susceptible to severer forms of civil and criminal punishment. While allowed limited participation in local cultic rites, they were excluded from priestly offices, but still shared full responsibility with the citizenry for all financial burdens, such as tribute, taxes, and production quotas. Their different languages, clothing, customs, religious traditions, and foreign roots set these aliens apart and exposed them to suspicion and hostility on the

35

36

1 Peter 1 part of the native population and to charges of wrongdoing and conduct injurious to the well-being of the commonwealth and the favor of the gods.7

Despite all the drawbacks of living as “a stranger in a strange land,” people still did it. David Noy’s study Foreigners at Rome shows that despite the barriers to citizenship and advancement placed on aliens living in Rome, they still came voluntarily in great enough numbers to keep the working-class population relatively stable during the first two centuries of the Common Era, when the so-called Pax Romana meant that Rome could not count on periodic infusions of war captives to boost the number of slaves.8 Noy’s examination of inscriptions from the period suggests that many immigrants to Rome during the first and second centuries came from the territories addressed by 1 Peter.9 Commentators differ on how literally to read “sojourner.” Some take this to be an indication of the recipients’ actual social condition; in their view, 1 Peter was addressed to persons living in Asia and surrounding provinces, but who were not citizens of those places.10 The major claim in favor of this view is that the words paroikos and parepid∑mos are normally used in the LXX as literal social designations.11 As noted above, parepid∑mos occurs only twice in the LXX, both times in parallel with paroikos. The first instance, Genesis 23:4, is certainly a literal description of Abraham’s legal situation, but the second occurs in a psalm of lament, and cannot be intended always to be taken literally. The word paroikos or the verb paroikein occur 104 times in the LXX. Many of these are in historical or legal contexts, where they designate a foreigner—either an Israelite living abroad or a Gentile living in Judea. But there are several uses in Psalms that are not so clearly literal: • LXX Psalm 14:1 (=15:1): O Lord, who will sojourn in your tent? • LXX Psalm 33:5 (=34:4): I sought the Lord and he favorably heard me, and rescued me from all my sojournings. • LXX Psalm 60:7 (=61:4): I will sojourn in your tent forever . . . . • LXX Psalm 118:19 (=119:19): I am a sojourner in the land; do not hide your commandments from me. • LXX Psalm 118:54 (=119:54): Your commandments have been my psalms in the place of my sojourn.

1 Peter 1

37

Psalms, like hymns, are not single-use compositions. The author may be autobiographical, describing his or her own literal situation, but would expect that others, whose situations differed, could also pray or sing the text beneficially. The use of “sojourner” language in LXX Psalm 38 (39), for instance, is meant to call up in the pray-er’s mind the stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs who lived as aliens first in Palestine, then Egypt, then Babylon, and then, depending on the worshiper’s family history, in various other places. But imagine Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, for instance, praying LXX Psalm 38 (39) while lying feverish on her sickbed on the day before Jesus came to heal her (Mark 1:30-31): “Hear my prayer, O Lord, and attend to my tears. Do not remain silent, because I am a paroikos before you and a parepid∑mos, just as all my ancestors. Release me so that I may revive before I go away, never more to exist.” Technically, she was not a resident alien or sojourner, but the psalm still fits in her mouth, does it not? The position this commentary takes is that “alien” and “sojourner” will have literally described the situation of some but not all of 1 Peter’s first readers. But for all the first readers, the terms function as part of the letter’s horta“Resident Alien” in 1 Clement tory strategy: whether you are a citizen or 1 Clement, which was probably written roughly not, think of yourself as an alien as a result about the same time as 1 Peter (some people of your commitment to Christ.12 [“Resident think it drew on 1 Peter), begins this way: “The church of Alien” in 1 Clement]

God living as aliens at Rome to the church of God living

as aliens at Corinth, to those called, to those beloved in “Elect sojourners of the Diaspora” would, God’s will through our Lord Jesus Christ; may grace and taken literally, indicate an ethnically Jewish peace from the all-powerful God be multiplied to you audience of Christians, since diaspora in through Jesus Christ.” the LXX ordinarily means Jews living “Residing as aliens” is a form of the verb paroikeø, the same root as the noun “resident aliens” in 1 Pet 2:11. outside Palestine. In two places, however, 1 Peter addresses its audience in ways that better fit Gentiles: • “you were ransomed from your meaningless ancestral way of life” (1:18). • “For the past time is sufficient for performing the desire of the Gentiles, living in . . . lawless idolatries” (4:3).

It would be odd for “Peter” to refer to Judaism as “a meaningless ancestral way of life.” That phrase is a more appropriate way for “Peter” to name the readers’ now-abandoned practice of idolatry if the readers were Gentiles. Yet “Peter” consistently refers to non-

38

1 Peter 1

Christians as “Gentiles” and regularly addresses the readers with terms that in the LXX apply to Israel: “chosen race,” for instance. Most commentators therefore conclude that “of the Dispersion” is also part of the writer’s rhetorical strategy. He has decided not only to address his audience as if they were non-citizens of the places they live (which may have been literally true of some but not all of them); he has also chosen to depict them as God’s chosen people. But note that he never calls them “Jews” or “Israel”; while they are a “chosen race” and “God’s own people,” they are never said to be descended from the twelve tribes or from the seed of Abraham. Some of those who first received this letter may have been ethnic Jews who followed Jesus. But this letter, addressed as it is to five provinces that contained multiple ethnic groups, is not at all concerned with ethnicity. There is no discussion of the practices that marked Jewish identity—the food laws, keeping Sabbath, circumcision—and that Paul needed to address for his mixed-ethnic congregations. The list of place names describes the area bordered by the Aegean to the west, the Mediterranean and the Taurus Mountains to the south, the Black Sea to the north, and Syria to the east—roughly, modern-day Turkey. Although there are five place names, Pontus and Bithynia had been one Roman province since 63 BC.13 The usual suggestion for why the two names are listed separately is that the order bespoke the route the letter carrier would take to deliver it. On this theory, the courier could begin at one of the Black Sea ports on the northeastern, Pontus end of Pontus/Bithynia, go east to Galatia, southeast to Cappadocia, west to Asia, and then north to return to the southwestern, Bithynia end of Pontus/Bithynia and presumably sail for home.14 A courier coming from Rome, however, would more naturally begin somewhere in Asia, so maybe the places are simply listed in the order that the author thought of them. The territories named are mostly familiar to Bible teachers. Asia turns up often in Paul’s letters (e.g., “The churches of Asia send greetings,” 1 Cor 16:19), and Paul’s work in Ephesus and his interest in Colossae and Laodicea spring to mind. Revelation was also addressed to Christians in seven different Asian cities, and ancient Christian tradition connects the Gospel of John with that region as well. Galatians we know from Paul’s impassioned address to Christians in that region, but since there are no specific cities

1 Peter 1 Map of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia

named in the letter, debate still rages about where, precisely, Paul’s recipients lived. Cappadocia is a blank; while it is named in Acts 2:9, there is no later New Testament evidence for how Christianity spread there. Bithynia and Pontus, the northernmost areas named, show up in Acts: Paul wants to go into Bithynia, but “the Spirit of Jesus” prevents him (Acts 16:7). People from “Pontus and Asia” are present at the Pentecost miracle (Acts 2:9), and Aquila is identified as a native of Pontus (Acts 18:2). These provinces contained a variety of types of places and people, and for a late first- or early second-century reader, the names probably signified a broad intended audience. Galatia and Cappadocia were rugged, rural areas, whereas Asia, especially along the Aegean coast, boasted large cities (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Miletus). Asia thought of itself as Greek, but Asian Greek as opposed to Attic Greek, and different from the Persian-influenced Pontic Greeks. Galatia was populated by the descendants of various Celtic tribes who migrated there in the third century BC. Cappadocians traced themselves back to the Hittites. John Elliott estimates the total population of the areas addressed at 8.5 million. Roman opinion, never high for any group of foreigners, was low for the residents of these provinces. They thought Cappadocians

39

40

1 Peter 1

“spoke vile Greek, if they spoke Greek at all, and though they were often tall and made good litter-bearers (as did Bithynians and Syrians), they were as a general rule both stupid and dumb.”15 By way of heaping abuse on the former consul Piso, who had helped send Cicero into exile, Cicero said, “Insensitive, tasteless, tonguetied, a dawdling apology for a man, a Cappadocian, you might think, who had just been picked out of a crowd of slaves under the auctioneer’s hammer.”16 Part of Cicero’s defense of the disreputable Flaccus involved defaming the Asian Greeks whom Flaccus had defrauded. First, Cicero says there are three types of Greeks and that the ones living in Asia are not the true Greeks. Then he attempts to show that Asians do not even think well of themselves: I beg you therefore, witnesses for Asia, when you want to think over honestly what influence you bring to the court, to characterize Asia in your own minds and to remember not what foreigners usually say of you but what you think of your race yourselves. Your Asia, if I am not mistaken, consists of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, and Lydia. Is this proverb, then, yours or ours: “A Phrygian is better and more obedient when beaten.” And again, do you not have this saying about the whole of Caria, “Try out the poison on a Carian”? Or again, is there a more hackneyed and commonplace phrase in Greek that to say “the farthest of the Mysians” of anyone you despise? And what am I to say about Lydia? What Greek ever wrote a comedy without giving the leading slave part to a Lydian?17

With such a varied audience, it is not surprising that there are no bits of advice or exhortation tailored for any particular place. For purposes of comparison, think about Revelation 2–3, the letters to the “seven churches of Asia.” While the letters are in some ways formulaic—they have the same structure, they all draw on images introduced in the opening vision—there are situation-specific features in each one. Only Thyatira has the female prophet with whom John the Revelator has such a negative relationship; Pergamum, “where Satan’s throne is,” is home to the only named martyr; etc. First Peter offers no variation in advice based on differences in the readers’ situation—no advice specific to city-dwellers as opposed to farmhands, nothing to indicate that Christians in sparsely populated Cappadocia faced anything different from those in metropolitan Ephesus. Since that is true, why include the place names at all? Why not stop with “to the chosen resident aliens of the Diaspora”? To put

1 Peter 1

41

the point in our terms, what would be the difference between a letter full of advice for Christians in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Oregon as opposed to a letter meant for all United States Christians? If you addressed Christians in those five states as a group, not allowing for variations in local situations, your advice would need to be so general as to be applicable to the whole country. But naming the specific places is the epistolary equivalent of how effective persuasive speakers, even when exhorting throngs, give each listener the impression of being directly addressed. In short, the names may indicate the actual places where the letter was first sent. But whether or not that is the case, addressing the letter to actual places has the rhetorical effect of making the advice seem more targeted. Election Analysis, 1:2 Following the list of place names, the author includes three prepositional phrases that hang in the air a bit. The author probably means them to explain “elect,”18 although they could be intended to support his claim to be an apostle or even to explain the origin and purpose of the letter. Presuming that the phrases qualify “elect,” they read something like this: “to the elect . . . according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ.” According to the foreknowledge of God the Father: The letter’s recipients are “elect”—i.e., have been chosen by God—as a part of God’s plan of salvation set out before the world was created. [Foreknowledge] This plan included, the author believed, God’s decision to send Christ (1:20), God’s revelation of that plan to the prophets (1:10-12), the recipients’ favorable response to it (1:2), and the rejection of the plan by “the Gentiles” (2:8). This would have surprised no reader. Those who were the least bit familiar with the story of God and Israel would know Foreknowledge that God’s choice of Israel also entailed While we have time to be healed, let us give divine plans made in advance and then ourselves over to the God who brings healing, paying him what is due. And what is that? Repentance revealed to prophets. If some readers had from a sincere heart. For he knows all things in advance no background knowledge of the Old [lit., “his foreknowledge is of all things”] and recognizes Testament or Judaism, it would still have what is in our hearts. And so we should give him praise, seemed a commonplace to them that God not from our mouth alone but also from our heart, that he may welcome us as children. planned things out far in advance. Many, if 2 Clement 9.7-10 not most, ancient people believed that

42

1 Peter 1

Destiny and Free Will In the prologue to Plautus’s comedy The Rope, the star/god Arcturus speaks: Arcturus is my name. By night, a god, a bright star in the sky—by day, a mortal, walking among men, as other constellations do, descending to your world. For the lord of gods and men, Great Jupiter, appoints us as his spies, one here, one there, in various different places, to watch how men behave, observe their acts, their characters, keep records of their piety and virtue, so that he, through Fortune’s hand, may suitably reward this man or that. (lines 8–12)

one’s destiny was to some degree determined— by the Fates, by prophecies, by ancient curses, or by the decisions of divine beings. [Destiny and Free Will]

In the sanctification of the Spirit: “Spirit” has no modifier (“holy,” for instance) and so one could read this phrase as “in the sanctification of the spirit,” meaning the spirits of the recipients—God has chosen them by making their spirits holy. But because of the Father-SpiritJesus references, because the emphasis in the other two prepositional phrases seems to fall on In Plautus, The Rope and Other Plays (trans. E. F. Watlington; New York: Penguin, 1964) 90. what God does, and because “Spirit of Christ” (1:11) and “Holy Spirit” (1:12) appear close by, commentators prefer to think of this as God’s Spirit. The initial preposition en (“in”) is often used to mean “by” in New Testament Greek, and there are some instrumental uses of en elsewhere in 1 Peter. “By the sanctification of the Spirit” would also make excellent sense, and many commentators prefer that translation.19 But following a suggestion by Green, I opt for “in,” making the Spirit’s sanctification—the ways the Spirit makes the letter recipients holy—the sphere in which God elected the readers.20 They are “resident aliens . . . in Pontus, etc.” but “elect . . . in the Spirit’s sanctification.” Holiness is a big deal in 1 Peter. Being “holy,” set apart as God’s and for God’s use, is a major part of how the author wants the readers to think of themselves: • “in the sanctification of the Spirit” (1:2) • “an inheritance . . . undefiled” (1:4) • “But in accord with the way the one who called you is holy, you yourselves must also be holy in your whole manner of life, just as it is written, ‘Be holy, because I am holy’” (1:15-16) • Christ was “as a lamb without spot or blemish” (1:19) • “Since you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth” (1:22) • “like living stones, be built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood” (2:5) • “You are . . . a holy ethnos” (2:9) • “When they see your reverent, pure manner of life” (3:2)

1 Peter 1

43

• “For thus also saintly women who hoped in God once adorned themselves” (3:5) • “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (3:15) Being holy, or pure, or blemish-free, is “a preeminent distinguishing feature of Christian identity and conduct.”21 [Set Apart for God] For obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: The third prepositional phrase is much harder to translate precisely than the first two. The phrase begins with the preposition eis, which has two objects, “obedience” and “sprinkling.” “Blood” is in a case that allows it to be translated “with blood.” But “of Jesus Christ” could simply modify “blood” or might also be intended to connect to “obedience.” So here are the options:

Set Apart for God You surely understand one thing, the need to do what every instinct of your body tells you is ordained for you. Haven’t you lived your life like that? Don’t we all at some time or another make a decision which we know is absolutely right, the assurance that some enterprise, some change, is imperative? And even if it fails, to resist it would be a greater failure. I suppose some people would see that as a call from God. P. D. James, The Private Patient (New York: Knopf, 2008) 69.

• Because of the obedience of Jesus Christ and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: The only way that this will make sense is if “obedience of Jesus Christ” is what grammarians call a subjective genitive, where it means Jesus’ own obedience. If one takes this option, then eis must be translated “because”—the readers are elected because of Christ’s obedience and sacrificial death, symbolized as Christ sprinkling believers with blood.22 But while eis can mean “because,” there are no other such uses in 1 Peter; everywhere else it means “for,” introducing a purpose clause, or “into,” showing direction. • For obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: This option allows one to take the preposition in its most common sense in 1 Peter, the introduction of a purpose statement. But it requires that one translate “of Jesus Christ” in two different ways—as an objective genitive in the first clause (obedience that has Jesus as its object), and as a possessive genitive in the second (Jesus’ blood, which is sprinkled on the believers).23 This is not impossible, but is very awkward. • For obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: The least problematic translation is to let “obedience” stand on its own, without any statement about to whom it is directed, and to let “of Jesus Christ” govern only “blood.”24 In fact, “as obedient

44

1 Peter 1

children” in 1:14 probably indicates that the author tended to think of obedience as directed toward God rather than Jesus. Obedience is presented in 1 Peter as both a natural consequence of having been chosen by God the Father (1:2: 1:14-17) and as the means of gaining purity (1:22). The image of being sprinkled with blood likewise joins election and sanctification images. In Exodus 24, Moses reads the Torah aloud to the people and then, after they promise to obey it all, “taking the blood [of animals already sacrificed] he scattered it over the people and said, ‘Look, the blood of the covenant that the Lord made with you concerning all these words [of the Torah]’” (LXX Exod 24:8). If 1 Peter’s readers knew their Old Testament, they may have picked up on the Exodus reference.25 If not, they nevertheless probably would have thought of it as an image for cultic initiation or purifiVariations in Early Christian Greetings 1. Paul’s earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians, opens cation, since Greeks and Romans used the with the simplest greeting: “Grace to you and blood of sacrifices in those ways. peace.” Only the first two verses, and already the 2. Paul’s standard greeting was a little longer: “Grace to author has unloaded some pretty heavy you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, theology! He finishes up the greeting with Colossians, 2 Thessalonians). a popular variation on Paul’s “grace and 3. James, alone in the New Testament, uses the stanpeace” formula: “May grace and peace be dard “Greetings” as do ordinary secular Greek letters. multiplied to you.” [Variations in Early Christian 4. Jude has “May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you,” using the same verb as 1 Peter; 2 Peter, which used Jude, opens with “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” 5. 1 Clement’s greeting is “May grace and peace be multiplied to you”—just as 1 Peter has it—but “grace and peace” is expanded with “from the all-powerful God through Jesus Christ.” 6. Polycarp’s letter To the Philadelphians, which probably used 1 Clement and 1 Peter, begins, “May mercy and peace from the all-powerful God and from Jesus Christ our savior be multiplied to you.” 7. The Martyrdom of Polycarp expands 1 Peter’s greeting in a different way: “May the mercy, peace, and love of God the father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied.”

Greetings]

Opening Sentence, 1:3-12

An envelope came in the mail with “YOU’VE BEEN PRE-FORGIVEN: OPEN TO FIND OUT HOW” printed on the outside. Addressed to “Smart Driver,” it was clearly not aimed specifically at me (just ask my kids), but it was not a bad approach, if they were aiming at the over-50 theological educator market. An envelope that read “YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGH CAR INSURANCE, DO YOU?” would go straight into the trash. First Peter’s writing strategy in this first part of the letter is to accentuate the positive and to praise the readers, and God, for things that are already true about them. The author does not know

1 Peter 1

the recipients of his letter. He writes a general epistle—we have to keep this in mind as we read it—a letter that the author hoped would be useful and helpful to Christians living in all sorts of settings near the end of the first century. So he decides to assume the best about them: they do believe, they do rejoice, their faith is genuine, and they are heading toward a glorious experience on the day of judgment. Structure From “Blessed be God” in v. 3 to “into which [salvation] angels longed to peek” at the end of v. 12 is one long, complex (complicated? convoluted?) sentence in Greek. In order to see the way the themes are introduced and then reprised, and better to notice the parallel structures—crucial for deciphering what the author meant!—I offer an inelegantly wooden translation arranged to show some of the sentence’s underpinnings. Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, according to his great mercy Re-begat us into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead into an inheritance uncorrupted, unstained, and unfading guarded in heaven for you who are being protected through faith into a salvation prepared to be revealed in the Last Time, [A condition] in which you rejoice, Even if for a little while your suffering various testings is required, So that the proven-ness of your faith, more precious than gold which, though perishable, is proven through fire, May be found [as a cause] for praise and glory and honor In the revelation of Jesus Christ, Whom [=Jesus] you love, although you do not see him On whom you believe, still without seeing, But rather you rejoice with inexpressible and glorious joy Receiving as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls,

45

46

1 Peter 1 Concerning which salvation Prophets who were prophesying about grace for you Searched and sought Making careful inquiry into what person or which time The Spirit of Christ intended [the Spirit] who was pre-testifying in them to The sufferings and subsequent glories for Christ, To whom [the prophets] it was revealed that They were pursuing these things for you, not themselves, Which [the things revealed to the prophets about Christ] Are now proclaimed to you Through those who evangelized you By the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, Into which [the things proclaimed to you] angels long to peek.

The sentence begins as a prayer praising God for providing salvation (vv. 3-5). Then it turns to the issue of how salvation and suffering connect (vv. 6-7), then to the recipients’ devotion to Jesus (vv. 8-9), then to how salvation through Christ’s suffering was first revealed to prophets and then preached to the recipients (vv. 10-12). Each of these subdivisions closes with a reference to the theme of the next section—v. 5 has “salvation” near the end, v. 7 ends with “Jesus Christ,” v. 9 ends with “the salvation of your souls.” There are several repeated refrains or themes: • The career of the Messiah: suffering (v. 11), resurrection from the dead (v. 3), future revelation in glory (vv. 7, 11). 1 Peter uses the Messiah’s career later as a model for how Christians should live: Christ’s suffering on the cross (2:18-25), Christ’s preaching to the dead and resurrection (3:18–4:6), and Christ’s future return (4:12-19). • The manifold nature of salvation: described as mercy (v. 3); rebegetting (v. 3); a living hope (v. 3); an immortal, indivisible, and imperishable inheritance (v. 4); an occasion for praise and glory and honor (v. 7); a mystery revealed to prophets by the Spirit (v. 11); and a present reality as well as something to be revealed at the Last Day (v. 5). • The faith of the recipients: as protection (v. 5); as proven (v. 7); as directed toward the as-yet-unseen Jesus (v. 8); salvation as outcome of faith (v. 9).

1 Peter 1

• Things being done “for you” or “to you”: an inheritance guarded for you (v. 4), grace for you (v. 11), the prophets’ pursuit of mysteries was for you (v. 12); the things revealed to them are now proclaimed to you (v. 12). Note how the actors named in the verses form a complex web of relations: • God is “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” who also re-begat us; God is the one responsible for the “resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” as well as for the “living hope” into which we have been re-begotten. • Jesus Christ is God’s progeny (implied, but not stated) and “our Lord”; the object of our belief and love; the subject of the searches of the prophets, who were granted revelation by Christ’s Spirit. • The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, who gave the prophets testimony about the sufferings and glories intended for Christ, and who inspired those who evangelized the letter recipients. • The prophets diligently sought information about Christ and were given it by the Holy Spirit, but for the sake of the letter recipients, so that they could pass these things along. • Unnamed persons evangelized the letter recipients, motivated by the Spirit and proclaiming things revealed by the prophets. • Angels wished they could peek into the topics preached to the recipients by the evangelists. • The author, along with the recipients, has received the new begetting from God into an unchangeable inheritance. • The recipients are beneficiaries of God’s mercy, re-begotten into a living hope, an unchangeable inheritance; they love Jesus, their unseen Lord, whose future revelation they await with joy through suffering; they have accepted the good news proclaimed to them by the evangelists. With that bit of preliminary mapping done, we plunge in, taking things a section at a time. Blessed Be God, Provider of Salvation, 1:3-5 “Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his great mercy re-begat us into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead into an inheritance uncorrupted, unstained, and unfading, guarded in heaven for you

47

48

1 Peter 1

Peter Prays In the following passage from The Robe, Peter has just been released from prison (the Acts 12 story). He bangs on the gate of the house in Jerusalem where all the Christians are meeting; Rhoda the slave eventually opens the door for him. They moved slowly into the house, Rhoda weeping inconsolably. The place was crowded with Christians. Their grieving eyes widened and their drawn faces paled as Simon entered, for they had thought him dead. They made way for him in silence. He paused in the midst of them. Some great experience had come to Simon. He had taken on a new dignity, a new power. Slowly he raised his hand and they bowed their heads. “Let us pray,” said Peter the Rock. “Blessed be God who has revived our hope. Though in great heaviness for a season, let us rejoice that this trial of our faith—more precious than gold—will make us worthy of honor when our Lord returns.” Lloyd C Douglas, The Robe (1942; repr., Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999) 369–70.

who are being protected through faith for a salvation prepared to be revealed in the Last Time . . . .” [Peter Prays] Those who wrote letters in Greek in the first century often included a brief prayer right after saying “greetings.” These mostly followed a couple of conventional patterns: • Claudius Agathas Daimon to most beloved Serapion, greetings . . . . I pray for your health continually together with that of your children.26 • Chairas to his dearest Dionysius, many greetings and continued health.27 • Sempronius to Maximus his brother, many greetings. Before all I pray for your welfare.28

Paul once again seems to have been an innovator, adapting this expected pattern to make it more tailored to the specific circumstances of his letter. In most of his letters, the prayer begins “I thank my God (or we thank God)” and then spells out reasons why he could be grateful: because the Thessalonians Blessed Be God Many Jewish prayers from the were continuing steadfastly in their newfound faith Second Temple period (from the end (1 Thess 1:2-3); because of the long-standing partof the Babylonian Exile to the destruction of nership he has had with the Philippians (Phil the temple in AD 70) begin, “Blessed are you, 1:3-5); because of the wealth of spiritual gifts disO Lord,” and then continue with a motive clause: because you do this or that. Some played by the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:4-5); and examples: because of the world-renowned faith of the Roman Christians (Rom 1:8). Second Corinthians, Blessed art thou, O Lord, who art righteous in however, begins exactly as 1 Peter: “Blessed be the all thy ways (4Q408) Blessed be God who lives forever (Tob 13:1a) God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor Blessed are you, O Lord . . . and blessed is 1:3a), followed by a focus on God’s mercies as a your glorious, holy name (Prayer of Azariah 29-30; LXX Dan 3:23) reason for praise (2 Cor 1:3b-4). The prayer in Thou art holy and thy name is awesome, and Ephesians also starts that way (Eph 1:3). there is no God beside thee. Blessed art thou, In the LXX, “blessed be God,” followed by a O Lord, the Holy God. (Benediction 3 of the Eighteen Benedictions, according to the Cairo phrase naming some divine action or aspect, is a Genizah fragments) common prayer beginning (e.g., LXX Gen 14:20; 1 Kgs 5:21; 1 Esd 4:40; Pss 17:47; 65:20). [Blessed Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (New York: de Gruyter, 1977) 26–27. Be God] Prayers in Tobit often begin either “blessed

1 Peter 1

are you, O God” (LXX Tob 3:11; 8:15; 11:14) or with a “blessed be God” phrase: “of our fathers” (LXX Tob 8:5), “who has brought you to us” (11:17), “who lives forever” (13:2), “who raised” (13:18). Paul may have been the one to Christianize the Jewish “blessed be God” by adding “and father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but it seems more plausible to me that this was something many early Christians did in their prayers. But since his letters are our earliest Christian literature, it looks as if he was the one to think of substituting this Christian benediction for the more typical Greek epistolary prayer for good health. Furthermore, except for Luke 1:68, where Luke appropriately has Zechariah the priest pray a “blessed be God” prayer, the only New Testament examples of this form are in Paul’s letters and here. That does not prove 1 Peter’s use of Paul’s letters, but since we can be pretty sure that Paul’s letters were widely circulated by the end of the first century, 1 Peter’s prayer would have sounded Paul-like to the audience. Addressing God as “Father” was not unknown for Jews, Greeks, or Romans, but because of Jesus’ prayer habits and especially because of the Model Prayer, “Father” was a common Christian address for God. To call the deity “Father” is most certainly to make a claim to a family relationship. But because the father of a Greek, Roman, or Jewish household had certain legal powers over his wife, his children, his slaves, and his clients, calling God “Father” is not necessarily an attempt to snuggle up29 (more on this at 1:17). Here the stress falls first on God’s relationship to Jesus, who is presented first as kyrios, Lord, rather than as our relative. “God the father” (1:2) is our Master’s father before anything else in this letter. [A Father’s Rights] In accord with God’s great mercy, God has “re-begotten us into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” God’s mercy, biblically, is God’s faithfulness to the covenant and willingness to forgive (LXX Deut 5:10: 7:9). Sirach 16:11-12, using identical wording to 1 Peter 1:3, contrasts God’s mercy with God’s punishment: “even if there were only one stiff-necked person, if he were unpunished, this would be amazing, for mercy and wrath are from [God]—mighty doer-of-mercy and one who pours out wrath. In accord with his great mercy, so also his great discipline/punishment; he will judge a man according to his deeds.” [Mercy] “Re-beget” is an odd word. In the New Testament it appears only here and (in a different grammatical form) at 1 Peter 1:23; it never

49

50

1 Peter 1

A Father’s Rights Under Roman law, a father had the right of life and death over his children (the patria potestas). Augustus’s Julian Law reaffirmed a father’s right to kill his daughter if he found her committing adultery. A father could sell his children into slavery (presumably to pay off debts); the Twelve Tables (traditionally dated 450 BC) says that if the father sells a son three times, the son is then free from the father’s authority. The father could arrange or refuse marriages for his children; the Emperor Augustus’s Papian-Poppaean Law, intended to encourage more marriages among the upper classes, set limits on the length of betrothals and on the reasons for which a father might forbid his child’s marriage. In the first century, patria potestas was held to apply even to married sons and to married daughters who were married sine manu—that is, without transferring final

authority over the woman and her dowry to her husband. Simply because the power existed legally does not mean that it was always, or even often, exercised. In fact, scholars of ancient Rome point out that if you consider both average life expectancy for males and the average age for marriage for men and women, the consequence is that “by the time children reached their late teens or early twenties—when women usually married—more than half had already lost their fathers. . . . Only a fifth or so of men at the time of their marriage in their late twenties or early thirties were still in their father’s power and had to tolerate their interference in a decision about marriage.” Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) 138.

appears in the LXX. “Born again/anew” in John 3 combines the normal verb for being born plus an adverb; “water of rebirth” in Titus 3:5 uses the more common word for a spiritual rebirth, of the sort celebrated by the mystery religions.30 First Peter’s word puts the emphasis on God’s action in fathering “us,” the Mercy author and the recipients. The contrast in the “re” is No matter where you lead or with one’s natural birth, and is consistent with how you are led, no matter how the often 1 Peter pictures conversion as living in God’s waves may break upon you, and what sins you may unknowingly commit, it is household. But instead of “re-begotten us into the true that by the grace of God you can household of God,” the author stretches a bit to sometimes make amends. connect “re-fathering” to “living hope”—that is, to a vibrant, living hope rather than dead despair.31 Perhaps Mark Helprin, “Il Colore Ritrovato,” in The Pacific and Other Stories (New York: Penguin, 2004) 34. the author was thinking of how hopeless life can feel when one’s circumstances are both oppressive and unlikely to change. However much or little he knew of the readers’ situations, he imagined them suffering in various ways because of their faith and, for some of them, because of their status as slaves. No need to envy the dead, or even to fear the threat of execution— a threat the readers know Peter had faced—because God raised Jesus from the dead. From a birth vs. death frame of reference, the author turns to the idea of inheritance: “God has re-begotten us . . . into an uncorrupted, unstained, and unfading inheritance, guarded in heaven for you.” The author uses a nice alliterative string in the first part of this verse, tailor-made for a sermon outline, and giving a nice emphasis to this verse when it was read aloud to the congregation.

1 Peter 1

In Greek, the words for “inheritance” and for “and” both begin with a “k” sound, and the three adjectives all begin with a short “a”: kl∑ronomian aphtharton kai amianton kai amaranton (the stressed syllables in bold). Everybody who had money or property was concerned about inheritance issues—Jewish, Greek, and Roman fathers worried about how to protect things for the next generation (sometimes from the next generation, if their children were spendthrifts), so the idea of an estate completely safe from all the various threats would have communicated instantly to any of the letter’s readers. For those who could hear Old Testament overtones, “inheritance” would have connections to the promises God made to the patriarchs. Several biblical authors used the idea of an inheritance to speak of various ways God blessed God’s people with the land, with the Law, and with a relationship to the Lord: • LXX Genesis 15:7: But [God] said to [Abram], I am the God who led you from the region of the Chaldeans in order to grant for you to inherit this land. • LXX Sirach 24:23: All these are the book of the covenant of God Most High, the law which Moses commanded us, an inheritance for the synagogues of Jacob. • LXX Psalm 15:5 (=16:5): The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and my cup. God’s people are also spoken of as God’s inheritance (LXX Ps 32:12 [=33:12]; Sir 24:12). The image is that God re-fathered these recipients, resulting in an unchangeable inheritance; it means that they are part of God’s household, counted as children with a stake in the family estate. It is interesting that 1 Peter chooses to make this household connection through a birth, rather than adoption, metaphor. Paul preferred the latter (Rom 8:15, 23; Gal 4:5), famously comparing the inclusion of the Gentiles into God’s people to how wild olive branches are grafted onto a cultivated olive trunk (Rom 11:17-24). One of the differences of thought between Paul and 1 Peter is how easily our author transfers Israelite rubrics to these Gentile readers without any qualification. The three alliterating adjectives, prominently, perfectly positioned, are all the negation of some quality. As in English we make “changing” into “unchanging,” Greeks did it by putting an alpha onto the beginning of the word. So phthartos, meaning corrupt,

51

52

1 Peter 1

perishable, mortal, becomes aphthartos, “immortal” or “incorruptible.” Amianton, coming from a verb that means “to stain, defile,” means “unstained,” which is normally a word associated with the purity of a temple or with sexual purity.32 Amarantos is based on a verb meaning “to fade, wither, die out,” and is related to the name of a shrub with leaves the Greeks considered long-lasting.33 Each word enhances the sense that the inheritance is rock-solid, impervious to damage—and as the readers of this commentary probably know all too well, there is no such thing in real life. In the world of 1 Peter’s readers, people lost substantial inheritances because they backed the wrong politician, because their property lay in the path of an army, or because they incurred too much debt and had to sell themselves and their families into slavery. The author of Hebrews said to his readers “you cheerfully accepted the plundering of your possessions” as a result of their commitment to Christ (Heb 10:34). God’s estate is not subject to these disasters, and now that God has put you readers into the household, your inheritance is under God’s protection. The readers have been re-begotten into a living hope, into a sure inheritance, and “into a salvation prepared to be revealed in the Last Time.” The Christian salvation is not all about the future, as we will see in this letter, but there is always a future orientation, an aspect that has yet to be unveiled. Since the hope/inheritance/salvation is being kept safe in heaven for now, there No Need for Future Hope? must be a planned curtain raising, a time when “Uncle Jules is the only man I know everything will be plainly visible. Notice how the whose victory in the world is total progression works: hope is “living” because Jesus and unqualified. He has made a great deal of was raised from the dead; the inheritance is money, he has a great many friends, he was Rex of Mardi Gras, he gives freely of himself unchanging because it is being kept safe in and his money. He is an exemplary Catholic, heaven—much as Jesus sits at God’s right hand for but it is hard to know why he takes the now; and on “that day,” when God sends Jesus trouble. For the world he lives in, the City of back to close up shop, hope will become reality, Man, is so pleasant that the City of God must hold little in store for him.” promised inheritance will become actual possesWalker Percy, The Moviegoer (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, sion, and what has been prepared will be revealed 1967) 31. as salvation. [No Need for Future Hope?] Salvation: Joy, Suffering, Proven-ness, and Future Cause for Praise, 1:6-7 “[God is keeping your salvation safe to be revealed at the last time—that is a condition] in which you rejoice, even if for a little while your suffering various testings is required, so that the proven-

1 Peter 1

53

St. Peter Opens Paradise ness of your faith, more precious than gold which, though perishable, is proven through fire, may be found [as a cause] for praise and glory and honor Image Not Available in the revelation of Jesus due to lack of digital rights. Christ . . . .” Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet From praise for the God search using the credit below. who saves, 1 Peter turns to description of the salvation God provides. Verse 6 begins with the first of three relative pronouns used to divide this Saint Peter opening the doors of Paradise to the elect. Exterior porch, Church of Saint George, Voronet. The Last Judgment was painted in 1547–1550 when the porch was added to the long sentence into sections church. St. George Church, Voronet, Romania. (Credit: Vanni/Art Resource, NY) (the other two are in vv. 8 and 10). The “which” of “in which In Christian art, St. Peter was assigned responsibility for tending the gates of Paradise. Here he is at the Last Day, opening Paradise and welyou rejoice” may have as its coming the elect. antecedent “last time,” but then we would expect “you will rejoice.” To make sense of the present tense of “you rejoice,” most take the “which” to refer more generally to the circumstances described in the preceding verse—how God provides salvation for the letter’s recipients.34 “You rejoice” is not an imperative, but a flat statement, repeated in v. 8 (but see the imperative in 4:13)—one of three affirmations made in this long opening sentence about what the Asian Christians are doing well (the other two are in v. 8). The author gives us no clues about how he might know this. He seems to be commenting not on what he has heard about them, but on what must be true since they are believers. While “rejoicing” is stated as actual, “suffering” is stated as potential or possible: “even if for a little while your suffering various testings is required.” As noted in the introduction, the letter’s statements about what the recipients might undergo are general enough that they do not permit us to tie the letter to a specific time of persecution. Between Nero’s brief, localized period of terror and the initiation of mass persecutions in the late second century, such evidence as we have indicates that Romans did not waste much time or effort in trying to prosecute or persecute Christians. From AD 64–177, we know only of individual martyrs, which may indicate that most Christians could practice their faith in a low-key way and

54

1 Peter 1

come to no harm worse than name-calling and economic deprivations. “Testing” (used also at 4:12) translates a word that can mean “temptation” (e.g., Luke 4:13). Here, “testing” seems more appropriate because the experience is meant to demonstrate the genuine nature of the readers’ faith, and because it is described as possibly “required,” and not something that could be avoided through selfrestraint. First Peter has lots to say about how to think about suffering. This first pass makes it about guaranteeing a good outcome on Judgment Day: “so that the proven-ness of your faith . . . may be found [as a cause] for praise and glory and honor in the revelation of Jesus Christ.” It is possible that by “praise and glory and honor” the author means “of God,” and that he was describing how the readers will join the great chorus glorifying God at the revelation of Christ. But it seems more plausible that he meant that the recipients themselves will receive this sort of affirmation—by God? by the angels? by the saints?—as a benefit of having endured suffering. [Those Who Endured Are Praised/Praise God] Thus he states that they are rejoicing now, even if they are suffering, and if they go through this current hard patch successfully, their demonstrably genuine faith will be the grounds for rejoicing when the roll is called up yonder. Let us be clear what the letter does and does not say. It does say that the recipients are rejoicing; later it will say that they should rejoice (4:12-13), so perhaps that is implied here as well. It does not say that they should rejoice because they suffer; they rejoice on the basis of the salvation that will be revealed at the coming of Christ. The letter also does not say that suffering is required of all believers, but “if . . . suffering is required,” the experience will be analogous to the way fire purifies gold. Suffering, then, has a beneficial effect, but 1 Peter stops short of naming suffering desirable or even “good.” Suffering may be “required” and thus be part of God’s plan for the recipients, as it was for Jesus, but 1 Peter does not go so far as to encourage believers to seek to suffer. [Purified by Fire] Oh, How They Love Jesus, 1:8-9 “Whom [=Jesus] you love, although you do not see him; on whom you believe, still without seeing, but rather rejoice with inexpressible and glorious joy receiving as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls . . . .” Verses 8-9 turn from suffering to happier responses to God’s saving acts. “Whom [Jesus] you love . . . on whom you believe” go

1 Peter 1 Those Who Endured Are Praised/Praise God 88 Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when they shall be separated from their mortal body. 89 During the time that they lived in it, they laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour so that they might keep the law of the Lawgiver perfectly. 90 Therefore this is the teaching concerning them: 91 First of all, they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders. 92 The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought that was formed with them, so that it might not lead them astray from life into death. 93 The second order, because they see the perplexity in which the souls of the ungodly wander and the punishment that awaits them. 94 The third order, they see the witness that he who formed them bears concerning them, that throughout their life they kept the law with which they were entrusted. 95 The fourth order, they understand the rest that they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels in profound quiet, and the glory waiting for them in the last days. 96 The fifth order, they rejoice that they have now escaped what is corruptible and shall inherit what is to come; and besides they see the straits and toil from which they have been delivered, and the spacious liberty that they are to receive and enjoy in immortality. 97 The sixth order, when it is shown them

55

how their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on. 98 The seventh order, which is greater than all that have been mentioned, because they shall rejoice with boldness, and shall be confident without confusion, and shall be glad without fear, for they press forward to see the face of him whom they served in life and from whom they are to receive their reward when glorified. 99 This is the order of the souls of the righteous, as henceforth is announced; and the previously mentioned are the ways of torment that those who would not give heed shall suffer hereafter. (4 Ezra [=2 Esdras] 7:88-99) And the inhabitants in that place [the reward of the just] were clad with the raiment of shining angels, and their raiment was like their land. And angels ran round about them there. And the glory of those who dwelt there was equal, and with one voice they praised the Lord God, rejoicing in that place. The Lord said to us [Peter, James, and John], This is the place of your leaders, the righteous men. As is their rest, also is the honor and glory of those who are persecuted for my righteousness’ sake. (Apoc. Pet., Akhmimic sections 17-20, Ethiopic section 16; in Elliott, 611) J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).

along with “rejoice” (vv. 6, 8) as descriptions of the recipients’ actions. While God “re-begets” (v. 3), guards (v. 4), and prepares to reveal (v. 5), the believers rejoice, love, and believe. None of the letter’s first readers had ever seen Jesus, and because they believed this letter came from Jesus’ number one apostle, they may well have felt an implied contrast between themselves and the author. But 1 Peter’s author almost never pulls on this string (the possible exception being his use of martys, martyr, at 5:1; yet even this is something in which readers may also participate). His rhetoric is always either about what “we” experience, including the audience, or what “you,” the readers, are doing. Although 1 Peter several times exhorts the readers to love each other (1:22; 2:17; 4:8; 5:14), this one instance of “love” directed toward God is an indicative, a statement about the readers, like “ you rejoice” in v. 6. Likewise, the author speaks of “your faith” or describes how “you believe”—all indicatives, with no exhortations to have more or stronger faith. As noted earlier, the statements are

56

1 Peter 1

given without any supporting observations (such as Paul’s “your faith is being proclaimed in the whole world” [Rom 1:8]). They are Christians, after all, so these things must be true of them. But the effect Vibrating with restraint, he went through in his mind all the on the recipients of having Peter speak so things that were now dissolving in flame and combining confidently of their love for Christ, faith together in a serpentine of gases and smoke, in a ballet of in Christ, and rejoicing in salvation, even uncountable particles each behaving with a precision to which he could never even aspire: paintings; suits; books; when suffering, must have been salutary. metals and silver; things of ivory, leather, and silk; furniture As argued in the introduction, by the end of cherry and mahogany. The heat was such that even the of the first century one can presume that porcelain might melt. He felt this heat, but did not move. Nor did he want to move even as all he had built and many of those hearing 1 Peter read would worked for over so many years vanished before him at also have heard about Peter’s own struggles great speed. For he had already left it behind, and his spirit had been with faith, joy, and love from the Gospel unlocked, and his soul freed, in a gift that had come to him stories about him. Imagine a late firston the wind. century Asian believer, remembering Mark Helprin, “Vandevere’s House,” in The Pacific and Other Stories (New Peter’s denial of Jesus (Mark 14:66-71; York: Penguin, 2004) 113–14. John 19:15-18, 25-27), his weeping afterward (Mark 14:72; John puts Peter’s grief in another context, 21:17), and his post-resurrection reconciliation with Jesus (Mark 14:28; 16:7; John 21:15-19). If the John 21 traditions were known to the readers, then Jesus’ repeated “Simon, do you love me?”—added to Peter’s failure to be strong in faith in a moment of testing—may have made the letter’s confident assertions about the recipients that much more gratifying. In the phrase “you rejoice with inexpressible and glorious joy,” the verb translated “rejoice” is the same as in v. 6, but is a different root from the noun translated “joy.” Both are common words in the LXX, and Luke 1:14 treats them as synonyms. “Inexpressible” might also be “unexpressed”; the idea is that the joy the believers experience has not or cannot be put into words. “Glorious” is literally “glorified,” a “divine” passive participle that probably implies that God has infused the joy with the glory of God’s presence. [Joy] That is some joy, in other words. They are not just whistling a happy tune or letting a smile be their umbrella. They are feeling the sort of joy one would only feel before the face of God, when words leave you and your legs go weak. This kind of joy comes because35 they are “receiving, as the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” “Outcome” is the word telos, meaning the end or goal of something. Since “receive” has the sense of gaining something as Purified by Fire A very wealthy and obsessive man loses the woman he truly loves because he cannot let go of an obsession with a house. One afternoon, reflecting on his loss, he finds his house is on fire:

1 Peter 1

57

a reward or as payment, we are probably supposed Joy When men hear it [the voice of God] to be thinking here of the last judgment: their salvathey fall to their knees and their tion will be the final benefit God grants as a result souls are riven and they cry out to Him and of their life of faith. there is no fear in them but only that wild“The salvation of your souls” is unfortunately ness of heart that springs from such longing bound up with the whole body/soul division that and they cry out to stay his presence for they has at times turned Christianity into a faith that know at once that while godless men may live well enough in their exile those to whom taught people to devalue their bodies. If the soul is He has spoken can contemplate no life understood to be an immortal, invisible, immaterial without Him but only darkness and despair. bit trapped within the body of unchristian passions Cormac McCarthy, The Crossing (New York: Vintage, and desires and is the only thing that will be saved, 1994) 152. then (some have reasoned) the church’s business is bringing souls to God, treating the bodies involved mostly as impediments. But 1 Peter’s usage of psych∑, the Greek word usually translated “soul” or “self,” shows that the author means it to refer to the whole person. In 1:22 “soul” seems to be parallel to “heart,” by which first-century writers meant what we mean when we say the “will” or the “mind.” In 2:11, “fleshly desires” make war against the souls of the readers, which sounds like the old body/soul split, but then 3:20 uses “souls” to mean persons—the eight folks saved from the flood. So “the salvation of your souls” could be correctly paraphrased as “your own salvation” or “the salvation of your selves.”36 But perhaps the author attached “souls” as well as the personal pronoun “your” to the noun “salvation” to signal the turn he was about to make in vv. 10-12, where the readers’ salvation was the subject of investigation by the prophets of old; he will be dealing in the next three verses with matters spiritual and mysterious. Previews Granted and Desired, 1:10-12 “Concerning which salvation prophets (who were prophesying about grace for you) searched and sought, making careful inquiry into what person or which time the Spirit of Christ intended—[the Spirit] who was pre-testifying in them to the sufferings and subsequent glories for Christ, to whom [the prophets] it was revealed that they were pursuing these things for you, not themselves, which [the things revealed to the prophets about Christ] are now proclaimed to you through those who evangelized you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, into which [the things proclaimed to you] angels long to peek.” These next few verses take us through some high syntactical weeds, as well as tall theological timber. First, the grammar. If you

58

1 Peter 1

read Greek, pull out your New Testament and glance at how vv. 10-11 are structured. In English, the objects of prepositions need to follow close behind the prepositions, with perhaps an article intervening: “a bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea.” Rhythmic but predictable. In addition, subjects usually come before verbs in English. Greek, however, uses case endings rather than word order to match nouns to governing prepositions and to indicate the subject. Sticking to the Greek word order, v. 10 reads: “Concerning which salvation searched and sought prophets the ones about the for you grace prophesying.” “Prophets” is the subject of “searched and sought,” and everything from “the ones” through “prophesying” qualifies “prophets.” “For you” is nested inside “about the . . . grace” and both of those are nested inside “the ones . . . prophesying”—cool, isn’t it? And a good example of the fluency of 1 Peter’s Greek—neither Hebrew nor Aramaic nests prepositional phrases like that, so this passage is unlikely to have been composed by someone who had only limited formal training in Greek. The syntax is challenging for novice Greek-readers, but the sense of the passage is clear enough. The prophets of old searched diligently, looking for clues about the time and identity of the Christ who was destined to suffer. The Spirit revealed to them that the information they found was not so much for themselves, but for others—those reading 1 Peter. What they searched for, others announced as good news to the readers, led by the same Spirit; what they announced was such good news that even angels wanted an advance look at it. “Prophets” in these verses, as v. 11 makes plain, were the ancient prophets who lived prior to the time of Christ. Christians like the recipients of 1 Peter heard them read aloud in worship. [Justin, Apology 1.67] Early Christian interpretation of the prophets, as far as we can tell, seems to have been consistently, if not exclusively, christological; that is, Christians in the first and second centuries treated Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the others as predictors of the experiences of Jesus, mostly to the exclusion of what the prophets might Justin, Apology 1.67 On the day which is called have had to say to their own times and people. In addition, Sunday we have a for early Christians, “prophet” included Moses and David, common assembly of all who live in so that the Pentateuch and the Psalms were also interthe cities or in the outlying districts, preted as predictive. Thus, for instance, LXX Psalm 109:1 and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are (110:1), “The Lord says to my lord, Sit at my right, until I read, as long as there is time.

1 Peter 1

set your enemies as a footstool for your feet,” probably originally written as a hymn or poem for the coronation of a new Israelite king, was taken by early Christians as a prediction of Jesus’ resurrection/exaltation (Acts 2:34-35; Justin, Apol 1.45; Heb 1:13; and Barn. 12.10 cite the verse to prove Christ’s exalted status). Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-second century, interprets LXX Psalm 18 (19):1-2, “The heavens declare God’s glory, and the firmament announces the work of his hands. Day by day is uttering words, and night by night is announcing wisdom,” to be a prediction of the evangelistic work of the apostles (Justin, Apol 1.40). Justin, like many Christians of his era, argued that Christians understand the Old Testament better than Jews, but Barnabas goes further, denying that the ancient Israelites ever understood the Bible. It argues, for instance, that God never intended the laws about clean and unclean food (Barn. 10), Sabbath observance (15), or the temple (16) to be taken literally, and that the correct allegorical interpretation is only available to Christians: “How could they know or understand these things? We, however, speak as those who know the commandments in an upright way, as the Lord wished. For this reason he circumcised our hearing and our hearts, that we may understand these things” (Barn. 10.12). First Peter’s emphasis on how the Old Testament predicted Jesus would therefore have probably been familiar to the readers. More than likely, this was the sort of thing they heard in worship. According to 1 Peter 2:18-25, the author understands Isaiah 52:13–53:12 to have been a prediction of Jesus’ sufferings, so when he writes about “the Spirit of Christ . . . who was pretestifying to the sufferings and subsequent glories for Christ” (1:11), we know at least one of the prophets and Scriptures that he had in mind. It was also common among Christians of the late first and early second centuries to identify the Spirit who inspired the prophets with the Word of God: “We believe them [Matthew and Luke on the Virgin Birth], since the prophetic Spirit through the above-mentioned Isaiah said that this would happen, as we noted before. The Spirit and the Power from God cannot rightly be thought of as anything else than the Word, who is also the Firstborn of God . . .” (Justin, Apol 1.33). The prophets “searched and sought” (the two Greek words behind the verbs both alliterate and rhyme), “making careful inquiry”—not into the Scriptures, obviously, since they could not investigate something not yet written—but “into what person or which time the Spirit of Christ

59

60

1 Peter 1

intended.” In other words, the prophets wrestled with the meaning of the revelations given them by the Spirit, and by the same Spirit came to understand that their prophesies were “about grace for you,” and that “they were pursuing these things for you, not themselves.” Prophets like Isaiah Image Not Available knew they were passing along due to lack of digital rights. previews of things like “the sufPlease view the published ferings and subsequent glories commentary or perform an Internet for Christ” (meaning destined search using the credit below. for Christ in God’s plan) and that this news was really for the benefit of others. [Ignatius on the Prophets] The image of prophets passing along divine messages that could not be fully interpreted or understood until later Christ with Prophets. Mosaic, Mid 14th C. Baptistery, Venice, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] would have been familiar for the readers. Greek and Roman Ignatius on the Prophets religious practices included posing questions to the gods, For the most divine prophets lived according to whose answers came through male and female prophets Jesus Christ. For this reason also often in rather ambiguous oracles. [Sibylline Oracles] they were persecuted. But they Take a minute to think about this from a couple of difwere inspired by his gracious gift, ferent angles. First, as commentators note, the author so that the disobedient became fully convinced that there is one intends this as a way to show the readers how far back God God, who manifested himself has been thinking about them and how their salvation was through Jesus Christ his Son . . . . always part of God’s intention.37 Locating the readers as Ignatius, Magnesians 8.2. God’s people, full recipients of God’s grace and promises— that is one of the letter’s major purposes and one of its most appealing features. Our practices of pastoral care and evangelism would benefit from imitating 1 Peter’s focus on what God’s people are in God’s intention, rather than on the gap that always exists between how we live and what God aims for us to be. Second, however, we should be cautious about how far we take the notion that the prophets spoke for us and not for themselves. First Peter never says that the prophets failed to comprehend their own predictions or that the prophets had nothing to say to their own times. Christ with Prophets In this decoration of the ceiling above a 14th-century baptistery, Christ is inspiring the Old Testament Prophets. Many early Christians believed that as the Word of God, Christ provided them with what they preached and wrote.

1 Peter 1

61

But if we are not careful, “not for themselves but Sibylline Oracles The Roman Senate kept a collection of for you” can become “it’s all about us”—a most Sibylline Oracles—that is, prophetic implausible scenario, and a sort of theological texts supposedly delivered by a Sibyl, or holy narcissism. Implausible: suppose Isaiah had woman—for consultation in times of great disgathered an audience and then had begun by tress: “when political strife gripped the city, saying, “What you are about to hear has nothing when a great calamity had happened in war, or to do with you. You will not understand; when a portent or prodigy had appeared that was difficult to interpret” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, nobody will for several hundred years.” Why Antiquities 4.62). In order to use them, the would his audience have continued to listen, and Senate had to pass a law authorizing the quinwho would have cared enough to preserve his decimviri, the “Council of Fifteen,” to find the words? Narcissistic: why do we think God would appropriate passage, interpret it, and pass along the relevant advice. ignore that generation and all subsequent ones See Valerie M. Warrior, Roman Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge down to us? Do we think we are the only ones University Press, 2006) 48–49. God has ever cared about? Better, then, to stay with 1 Peter’s image of continuity between the Spirit who inspired the prophets, who empowered those who preached the good news to the letter’s audience, and who is also “the Spirit of Christ.” God’s word is full of grace, abundant enough to be good news across the ages for all who have heard it, because the Spirit makes it so. It is such great news, in fact, that the angels wanted a peek, but the Spirit has caused the news to be announced openly and broadly. Hope and Holiness, Reverence and Love (1:13-25)

The reason I live in Covington, Louisiana, is not because it was listed recently in Money as one of the best places in the United States to retire to. The reason is not that it is a pleasant place but rather that it is a pleasant nonplace. . . . Technically speaking, Covington is a nonplace in a certain relation to a place (New Orleans), a relation that allows one to avoid the horrors of total placement or total nonplacement or total misplacement.38

Walker Percy’s reflections on how place affects a writer help frame this next section. By “total placement,” he means “to live in a place like Charleston or Mobile, where one’s family has lived for two hundred years.”39 Percy notes how that usually cripples a writer: “It is necessary to escape the place of one’s origins and the ghosts of one’s ancestors but not too far.”40 A writer can choose to move to a foreign country, like Hemingway in Paris (“total misplacement”), or to a completely different region of the United States (“total non-

62

1 Peter 1

placement”). Neither choice sounded good to Percy—he knew he would miss his native South too much. So he moved from New Orleans to Covington: When I first saw Covington, having driven over from New Orleans one day, I took one look around, sniffed the ozone, and exclaimed unlike Brigham Young: “This is the nonplace for me!” It had no country clubs, no subdivisions, no Chamber of Commerce, no hospitals, no psychiatrists (now it has all these). I didn’t know anybody, had no kin here. A stranger in my own country. A perfect place for a writer! I bought a house the following week.41

Some of 1 Peter’s readers may have literally moved from their homeland, becoming strangers and sojourners in fact, but I suspect that most of them have not; they are still living in the places where they were born, but now as Christians they are acting as if they were foreigners. It is terribly hard to do this, to resist the pull of your family and friends, to risk the displeasure of your neighbors, and to remain steadfastly different when it would be so much easier to live as you did before your conversion. So 1 Peter, having praised them in 1:3-12 for what and who they are, now turns to exhortation. Sure, it is hard; roll up your sleeves and work at it. Being holy is no cakewalk. Yes, you are different now—a stranger in your own country—but unlike Percy, you do have kin here, so love them with all you are. Structure This next section includes the lectionary reading for the third Sunday in Easter, Year A (1:17-23), when contemplation of the effects of the resurrection should be on our minds. The first word in v. 13 is the conjunction dio, meaning “therefore,” and since it signals a turn from the descriptions piled up in vv. 3-12 to conclusions drawn from them, we can be pretty sure that v. 13 is the beginning of a new section. Where the author intended the section to end is harder to say. The verses in 1 Peter 2:4-10, the “living stone” passage, belong together, but v. 4 begins rather abruptly for the start of a new section. First Peter 2:1-3 is all one sentence, and begins with a “therefore” (a different word from v. 13, but still an inferential conjunction). I propose, then, to treat 2:1-3 with 2:4-10, which has the advantage of matching the lectionary reading for the fifth Sunday in Easter, Year A. Continuing to work back-

1 Peter 1

wards, the verses of 1:22-25 belong together, with the Scripture quote in vv. 24-25 offered as evidence for the command “love strenuously” in v. 22. First Peter 1:17-21 is all one sentence, commanding the readers to “live in reverence,” with appropriate explanations and amplifications. Verses 14-16 are a sentence, urging the readers to live holy lives, with a Scriptural support in v. 16, and v. 13 begins the section by exhorting the readers, “Hope completely!” Thus, although one could divide 1:22-25 from 1:13-21, I will instead approach this as one section. It has four main topics, all meant to be drawn from the descriptions of God’s saving actions toward the readers offered in 1:3-12. The topics are offered as imperatives. Each is qualified by at least one participle, and the second and last are supported by quotations from the Bible. Here is what it looks like: 1. Hope completely . . . (v. 13) • By girding the loins of your mind • By being self-controlled • Upon the grace brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ 2. Be yourselves holy in your whole manner of life . . . (vv. 14-16) • As obedient children • By not conforming yourselves to former desires had in ignorance • In accordance to how the one who called you is holy • Because it is written, Be holy, because I am holy 3. Live in reverence during your sojourn . . . (vv. 17-21) • Since the one you pray to as Father impartially judges everyone by his/her deeds • Since you know that you were redeemed not with perishable things, but with the blood of Christ 4. Love each other strenuously from a clean heart . . . (vv. 22-25) • Since you have purified your souls • Since you have been re-begotten . . . through the Word of God • Because (it is written), . . . the Word of God remains forever

63

64

1 Peter 1

Hope Completely, 1:13 “Therefore, by girding up the loins of your mind, by being selfcontrolled, hope completely upon the grace brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ.” As noted above, “therefore” means that the author is treating what he is about to say as an inference drawn from what he already said. So far, he has mostly played up what a wonderful situation the readers are in: chosen and re-begotten by God their Father, given a living hope by the resurrection of Christ their Lord, and receiving Spirit-inspired testimonies from the prophets and proclamations of those who first brought them the gospel. First Peter has had only good things to say about their faith: it is currently protecting them, and its proven value, demonstrated by their steadfastness in suffering, will be celebrated when Jesus is revealed. They love and believe in Jesus, although they have never seen him, and the author expects that Judgment Day will bring only the full realization of the inheritance God is currently guarding for them. Such a warm introduction might be expected to be followed by a “but,” as with John the Revelator’s “but I have this against you” or as with Paul, who spends five verses piling up nice words about the Corinthians’ speech, knowledge, spiritual giftedness, and strength, and then three and a half chapters berating and cajoling them about their divisive habits. First Peter does not do that, however. The four imperatives carry no hints that the readers are not already doing what the author is commanding. In a letter written to such a broad audience as this one, that strategy makes sense: you urge your readers to do what you believe is likely to help them and leave it to them to apply where needed. Translations of v. 13 sometimes treat the participles “girding” (anazøsamenoi) and “being self-controlled” (n∑phontes) as imperatives (the NRSV reads “prepare your minds . . . discipline yourselves”). Grammarians are divided on this issue; J. H. Moulton argued that the imperatival participle was a feature of Koine Greek, and some modern commentators follow him cautiously, reducing the number of imperatival participles that Moulton found in 1 Peter.42 My opinion is that one should only translate a participle as an imperative when no other option makes sense, which generally happens when an adverbial participle has no finite verb close by to modify (the first example is in v. 14). In this verse, the imperative “hope” can easily support the two participles, which I take to

1 Peter 1

65

be adverbial, describing the circumstances under which they will hope. Girding the loins literally meant tying up one’s robe or tunic and securing it at the waist, in order to be ready for active movement; it was a typical thing for slaves to do, as the quote from Polycarp shows. [Gird Up] It was a familiar metaphor for preparation: we say “rolling up your sleeves” or “suiting up.” First Peter is trusting that his readers have absorbed the descriptions of who they Gird Up are in vv. 3-12 and so have their minds right or their Therefore, after girding up your loins, be slaves to God in fear thinking correctly focused. The second participle is hard and truth, setting aside empty reato explain because it stands alone, without an obvious soning and the error of the many, object and without any sort of conjunction to make believing on the one who raised our plain how it is to be connected to “girding up” or Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and who gave him glory and a throne at his “hope.” My best guess is to take it as a second participle right hand. of means: “by being self-controlled,” like “by girding up Pol. Phil 2:1. the loins of your mind,” explains how the readers are to “hope completely.”43 This translation makes these participles parallel in function to the one in v. 14a. First Peter will have more to say later about what might be expected under the heading “being self-controlled,” which was a major topic for early Christian authors. [Self-controlled] Self-controlled “Completely” is an adverb (teleiøs) from the noun for N∑phontes, translated “being “end” or “goal” (telos). It is sometimes translated “perself-controlled,” literally means fectly” or “finally.” Here it probably means that the “being sober.” 1 Peter uses the imperaauthor expects the readers to pin all their hopes on their tive form of the same verb in 4:7 and 5:8 where it seems to mean something Christian faith, not qualifying it with any other comlike “be serious!” mitments or allegiances. “Hope,” as a noun or verb, is used five times in 1 Peter (1:3, 13, 21; 3:5, 15): • 1:3, God has re-begotten us into a living hope. • 1:13, Hope completely in the grace brought to you in Christ’s revelation. • 1:21, So that your faith and hope are in God. • 3:5, The holy women who hoped in God. • 3:15, The hope within you. The author tends to think of hope as both the result of God’s saving activity and as an activity that we undertake toward God; in the latter sense, it is parallel to faith, as 1:21 demonstrates. Think of hope as a “great expectation,” a confidence based on what has

66

1 Peter 1

Hope

already happened—election, re-begetting, etc.— that what God promised, God will provide. [Hope] “The grace brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ” presents another puzzle. The participle “brought” (pheromen∑n) is in a past tense, and so the clause may refer to the ministry of Jesus as a saving event. The phrase “in the revelation of 1 Clem. 26:1–27:1. Jesus Christ” has already been used in v. 7 to mean the second coming of Jesus and the last judgment. First Peter 1:20, however, speaks of Jesus having been made manifest at the end of time—meaning in the time of the author and the readers. Either orientation makes sense: Christ’s appearance brought God’s grace to the world and would serve as grounds for the Grace and Holiness readers’ hope,44 while Christ’s second coming will Her face was flushed with happiness, complete God’s work of grace and may also be the as it always was when she was in resting place for their hope. If the author meant the the proximity of holiness. An avowed second coming, then one can either fudge the agnostic, believing the sacred has been taken over by psychology, she nevertheless was translation of the participle (the NRSV translates it someone who melted toward the vision of “will bring” as if it were future), or infer that he was God’s grace, seeing it as a storm of sunlight, looking at the future with such confidence that the the most powerful force in history. readers could count the delivery as already made.45 Carol Shields, Larry’s Party (Toronto: Random House of Do we then think that it is so great and marvelous that the Creator of all things will raise everyone who has served him in a holy way with the confidence of good faith . . . ? Let our souls, therefore, be bound by this hope to the one who is faithful in his promises and upright in his judgments.

Canada, 1997) 215.

[Grace and Holiness]

Be Yourselves Holy in Your Whole Manner of Life, 1:14-16 “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires you had formerly in your ignorance, but in keeping with how the one who called you is holy, be yourselves holy in your whole manner of life, because it is written, ‘Be holy, because I am holy.’” First Peter often introduces exhortations with an “as,” which in this author’s usage is another way of saying that “because x is true, you should do y.” This one appears to be a double-edged command: do not do this, but do this instead; double-edged, that is, if we are correct to translate the participle “being conformed” (sysch∑matizomenoi) as an imperative. It is possible to keep it as a participle—“As obedient children, who are not conformed . . .”— but normally one would expect a definite article with the participle if that is what was meant. “As obedient children, since you are not conformed” or “As obedient children, by not being conformed” are plausible and mean approximately the same thing as the translation given above. Being conformed, in other words, is something to avoid as a means of being holy, which is the main point of this

1 Peter 1

67

section.46 The only other instance of this verb is in Romans 12:2, where Paul uses a true imperative and where the object to be avoided is “this age.” First Peter is more pointed in what he wants the readers to shun: “the desires you had formerly in your ignorance.” The desires or the passions, and what to do about them, were a common topic of discussion for Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian ethical writers during this period. A typical approach was to think of the passions as something to be mastered through processes intended to strengthen the will. A good example is the first-century Stoic-influenced Jewish work 4 Maccabees, which argues that human reason, if properly prepared through devotion to God and study of the Torah, can overcome normal human passions, allowing the faithful to stay in control even under extreme duress. To make this point, the author retells the stories of the martyrdoms of an old priest named Eleazar, seven brothers, and their mother (the author expands on a previous version found in 2 Maccabees). Each martyr dies bravely after being Devout Reason Conquers Emotion tortured in gruesome ways for failure to eat pork. 1 If, then, a woman, advanced in years and mother of seven sons, The elderly Eleazar has the constitution of an athlete endured seeing her children tortured to and does not give in to his age; the brothers, instead death, it must be admitted that devout of urging each other to eat and live, put aside their reason is sovereign over the emotions. 2 natural affection and urge each other to resist; and Thus I have demonstrated not only that men have ruled over the emotions, but also that the mother, whom the author holds up as a prime a woman has despised the fiercest tortures. example, is able to overcome the maternal desire to 3 The lions surrounding Daniel were not so protect her children as well as (according to the savage, nor was the raging fiery furnace of author’s understanding) the natural weaknesses charMishael so intensely hot, as was her innate parental love, inflamed as she saw her acteristic of women. [Devout Reason Conquers Emotion] seven sons tortured in such varied ways. 4 Roman and Greek Stoics, Cynics, and Platonists But the mother quenched so many and such would not link self-discipline and reason to the great emotions by devout reason. study of Torah, of course, but they would agree with 4 Macc 16:1-4. 4 Maccabees that by study and serious effort, one can, and should, learn to master one’s desires. [A Cynic on Emotion] But some Christians approached the issue differently. In their view, desire could be a powerful force for good if targeted toward the right end and allowed to grow. Rather than ignoring passion, this approach would redirect it. A good example of this understanding is the second-century Shepherd of Hermas, a long account of a man who has visions and is guided by various heavenly interpreters on how to understand them. Hermas’s problem is his own

68

1 Peter 1

A Cynic on Emotion Just as we do toward philosophy, the masses hasten eagerly toward what they think is happiness, whenever they hear of a short cut leading to it. But when they come up the road and survey its ruggedness, they draw back as though they were sick, and then somehow voice a complaint not about their own weakness, but about our indifference to hardship. So let them sleep with their pleasures as they are eager to do. For if they lead such lives, greater hardships will overtake them than those of which they accuse us. By reason of these they become base slaves to every circumstance. But as for you, continue in your training, just as you began, and earnestly pursue a balanced resistance to both pleasure and hardship. For it is natural for us to war equally against both and, first and foremost, to shackle them, the one because it leads to shameful deeds, the other because it leads away from noble acts through fear. “(Pseudo-)Diogenes to Crates,” in Abraham J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBL Sources for Biblical Study 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977) 107.

desires, which he cannot even completely identify, much less control. Desire turns out to be much more complicated than just “I am consumed with passion” vs. “I can handle it”; believers may be two-thirds green and one-third dead (spending too much time with unbelievers, but not yet fallen away from the faith) or mostly green and only a little bit dead (faithful believers who only gave in to petty desires and then repented) or any number of endlessly enumerated variations. Hermas learns that he can cultivate strong virtuous passions, and that unless he does, his efforts to bear Christ’s name will be fruitless (Herm.,

Sim. 90.2).47 [Shepherd of Hermas on Godly Passion] First Peter does not, like Hermas, depict the Virtues as beautiful virgins who kiss and dance and play with believers (no surprise— nobody but Hermas tries it). But 1 Peter does tend to distinguish between harmful and beneficial desires. In 1:14, believers are to stay away from, literally, “the former in-your-ignorance desires,” things characterized by an undisciplined submission to passion— licentiousness, drunkenness, etc. (4:3). But in 2:2-3, the author hopes that salvation will seem so tasty in the mouths of the believers that they will thirst for it. Shepherd of Hermas on Godly Passion The ninth parable in The Shepherd of Hermas is a story about how twelve beautiful virgins were building a tower out of stones. These young women are the Virtues, also called “holy spirits” (90.2). True followers of Jesus must bear their names as well as the name of the Son of God (90.3): “The first is Faith, the second Self-Restraint, the third Power, and the fourth Patience. And the others who stood between them are named Simplicity, Innocence, Holiness, Cheerfulness, Truth, Understanding, Harmony, and Love” (92.2). In one part of the parable, Hermas is left alone with the virgins for a night; scandalized, he tries to leave, but they tell him that he cannot: “But where will I stay?” I asked. “You will sleep with us,” they replied, “but as a brother, not as a husband. For you are our brother, and we will be living with you from now on because we love you so much.” But I was embarrassed to stay with them. Then the one who appeared to be their leader began to kiss me and hold me in her arms. When the others saw her holding me, they also began to kiss me, leading me around the tower and playing with me. It was as if I were young again, and I began also to play with them. For some of them were prancing, others dancing, and others singing. (88.3-5)

In this way, Hermas learns that being passionately connected to the Virtues is a good thing. When his spiritual guide comes back to meet him the next morning, he asks Hermas what he had for dinner: “‘All night long, Lord,’ I replied, ‘I dined on the words of the Lord’” (88.8).

1 Peter 1

69

So stay away from passions you once mistakenly thought were good or harmless, and instead, “be holy in your whole manner of life.” The word translated “manner of life” (anastroph∑ ) is one of 1 Peter’s favorites (also at 1:18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16). It is a comprehensive sort of word, meant to sum up how one operates according to one’s values: “Guard yourself, child, in all your deeds, and be someone who has been instructed in your whole manner of life” (Tob 4:14); “but [Eleazar], taking up a firm resolve worthy of his age . . . and of the most excellent manner of life he had had since childhood . . . quickly answered for [his torturers] to send him to Hades” (2 Macc 6:23). The whole-life principle announced here is “be holy in accordance with how God is holy,” the thesis of Leviticus, which 1 Peter cites in v. 16 (LXX Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26). Holiness is the separateness, the difference of God from everything else, not just from sin. “I am holy” means “I am God and there is no other”—no competitors, no parallels, no confusion between the Creator and the created, simply God. By extension, things or people are holy when they belong exclusively to God, or when they are sufficiently committed to God so that they can “draw near” to God without damage to themselves or to the place of drawing near. A shovel used to remove ashes from the altar in the temple was holy because it had been dedicated to this use alone. Ordinary Jews, coming into the temple to offer sacrifice for their sins or to pay a vow, were supposed to “sanctify themselves” by immersing themselves in a mikveh, an immersion pool. But all day, every day, they were obligated to honor their parents (Lev 19:3), to provide for the poor (Lev 19:9-10), and to refrain from doing things, like eating pork or shellfish, that had no obvious moral effects (Lev 11), in order to mark Holiness them as God’s people. That is what Leviticus The mass existed, in his perhaps heretical means by “be holy, because I am holy.” view, to keep, encourage, and sustain a sense [Holiness]

of holiness, and to hold open the channels of grace that, with age and discouragement, tend to close.

Holiness is another of 1 Peter’s major Mark Helprin, “Monday,” in The Pacific and Other Stories (New York: themes. Note the wide range of terms Penguin, 2004) 67–68. employed: holy (hagios, 1:12, 15, 16; 2:5, 9; 3:5); sanctify (hagiazø, 3:15); sanctification (hagiasmos, 1:2); purify (hagnizø, 1:22); pure (hagnos, 3:2); unblemished (amømos, 1:19); spotless (aspilos, 1:19); pure (katharos, 1:2); undefiled (amiantos, 1:4).48 The author takes over the Levitical theme that God’s people

70

1 Peter 1

Transfiguration

are to be separate from the rest of the world, urging his readers not to be like “the Gentiles” (2:12; 4:3). One obvious component of their separation would be giving up the worship of the gods (4:3, “lawless idolatry”), and the author echoes other early Christians in urging his readers to avoid sins of excess: licentiousness, drunkenness, etc. (4:3). But another set of things to avoid are community-killing attitudes: deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander (2:1). Holiness is thus about both being different from the world and being devoted to fellow believers (see discussion of 1:22 below).

Live in Reverence during Your Sojourn, 1:17-21 “And since you call upon a Fra Angelico painted this in a monk’s cell in Florence. St. Peter, on the Father who impartially judges bottom left, is turning away from Christ in his glory, while Moses and according to everyone’s deeds, Elijah, the Virgin and St. Dominic gaze intently at the Lord. 1 Peter would live in reverence during your agree that holiness demands one’s full attention. sojourn, knowing that you were redeemed from the worthless manner of life you inherited from your forebears, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but by the valuable blood of Jesus, as an unblemished and spotless lamb, foreknown before the world’s founding, but made plain at the end of times for your sake—you, who through him are believing in God who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are on God.” The word translated “live” (anastraph∑te) is the verb form of the noun “manner of life” (anastroph∑) from v. 15, so “live” carries connotations of “live by certain principles” or “conduct your life.” “In reverence” is literally “in fear,” which in 1 Peter is normally used for how one is related to God, and in that context is a good thing. It is hard for modern readers to read “fear God” without unfortunate

Fra Angelico (c. 1395–1455). Transfiguration. 1440–1442. Fresco, Museunm of San Marco, Florence, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

1 Peter 1

negative connotations, however, so “respect” or “reverence” comes pretty close to what is meant. “You must fear the Lord your God” (LXX Lev 19:14; Deut 6:2, 13, and many more times) is used as a summary call for living a godly life, while “the fear of the Lord” pervades legal, prophetic, wisdom, and cultic Old Testament texts as shorthand for a life correctly related to God. First Peter carefully distinguishes between respect due to everyone, including persons of high status or great power, and reverence due God (2:17); believers should only “fear” God. Pin all your hopes on God (v. 13); let God’s holiness guide the way you conduct your life (vv. 14-16); and conduct your life in reverence. All three imperatives are hammering on the same nail, that believers must be focused on God in a seriously exclusive way. These readers, the author figures, need a lot of encouragement on this topic. Christians were a small fraction of the population, and their culture was oriented toward support for their traditional gods and goddesses and for the newer cults, temples devoted to emperors and to the various mysteries. Public art and architecture displayed these deities and celebrated them as the saviors and protectors of the places where 1 Peter’s readers lived. Holidays and public celebrations honored the gods and the reigns of the divine emperors. Homes had private altars for daily offerings to the deities who guarded the house or to departed ancestors. Small statues stood at the gates of homes for folks to touch, for luck, when coming or going. People about to take a sip of wine poured a little onto the ground to honor the gods; people took oaths and cursed in the names of the gods; the gods were invoked to begin and end theatre performances and athletic contests. Craft guilds, burial societies, and military regiments had patron deities. It would not have been easy for 1 Peter’s readers to ignore all this, and the author would not have needed to know his readers intimately to guess how hard they struggled to live by the One God’s exclusive claims on them. Imagine finding something that made such claims on you, that captured your heart to such a degree that you could cut ties to your family, your work, your city, your faith, to the long history of your culture. It would be one thing to feel such a call and, like Abram, walk hundreds of miles to find a new place where you were a stranger—to put the oar on your shoulder and walk until somebody asked you what that was, so that you never had to wrestle

71

72

1 Peter 1

with your history again. [Emigrant] But what if you did not, or could not, leave? What if you made yourself a stranger in your own neighborhood? Not a clean break, but a ragged edge against which you cut yourself day after day, as you I didn’t like his London friends. I didn’t take to his longed both to fit into the life you had and to housemate Herbert Pocket, and I couldn’t underremain faithful to the life you had embraced. No stand why Pip had, and it worried me that he was leaving me behind. Nor could I understand why he wonder 1 Peter calls this way of life “your had changed his name to Handel. sojourn.” “Exile” (so NRSV) gives us the wrong Mr. Watts plonked himself down on the sand image, one of being forced out and kept out of beside me . . . . “Let’s see if I can explain, Matilda. . . . Pip . . . is like an emigrant. He is in home. Maybe some of 1 Peter’s readers had been the process of migrating from one level of society sent away, and maybe some of them had physito another. A change of name is as good as a change of clothes. It is to help him on his way.” cally moved and were living in a place far from their home. But chances are that most of them Lloyd Jones, Mister Pip (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2007) 70. were still living in the places where they adopted Christianity, living as if they were foreigners because their faith demanded that they abstain from so many ordinary, daily parts of life. Here are more reasons why they should live so uncomfortably. First, the God whom you call upon as “Father” is an impartial judge of people’s deeds. No favoritism—which always cuts both ways, right? We would like God to be just with others and merciful with us. But God sees through pretense, so if the readers are tempted to ease their “sojourn” by conforming here and there to their previously held values, they should remember the judgment coming. Second, the ticket price for their “sojourn” is extremely high— not some amount of gold or silver, but Jesus’ life. “You were redeemed” is a word for buying people out of slavery or for recovering lost (or almost-lost) property, and because this is the only place 1 Peter uses it, we cannot easily pinpoint the nuances he intends. In the LXX “redeem” is often used as a figure of speech for salvation with the exodus or the release of Israel from captivity in Babylon as the metaphorical comparison. A few examples:

Emigrant The speaker in the scene below has been reading Dickens’s Great Expectations, and she asks her teacher about the changes Pip makes after he moves to London.

• LXX Exodus 6:6: “Go, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, I am the Lord, and I will lead you from the power of the Egyptians and I will rescue you from slavery and I will redeem you with an upraised arm and great judgment.” In this verse, “redeem” means

1 Peter 1

the same as “rescue,” and requires no purchase price, only God’s great strength and acts of judgment. • LXX Psalm 33:22: “The Lord will redeem the souls of his slaves, and all those who hope in him shall not err.” Psalm 34 (LXX 33) will be cited in 1 Peter 2:3, so it may have been in the author’s mind as he wrote this verse. In this psalm, “redeem” is parallel to “save” (LXX Ps 33:18) and to “deliver” (33:17, 19), and the righteous are pulled out of “tribulations” (33:19) and death (33:21). • LXX Isaiah 43:1-4: “And now thus says the Lord, the God who made you, O Jacob, and who formed you, O Israel: Do not fear, because I redeemed you; I called you by your name; you are mine. . . . Because I am the Lord your God, the Holy one of Israel, the one saving you. I made Egypt and Ethiopia your redemption-price, and [gave] Soene [the Hebrew has “Seba”] for you. Because you were valuable in my sight, you were glorified, and I loved you, and I gave people for you and rulers for your head.” “Redeem” in its various forms as noun and verb is a favorite word in Isaiah 40–55. In this example, God “gives” other nations as the price for Israel’s redemption—not literally, of course, because to whom would God give the Egyptians? The notion is that God overthrew other nations in order to save Israel. • LXX Isaiah 52:3-4: “Because thus says the Lord, you were sold as a gift [i.e., given away], so you will not be redeemed with silver. Thus says the Lord, My people formerly went down to Egypt to sojourn there, and they were violently carried away into Assyria.” The point made in this saying is that since there was no purchase price for Israel’s “sojourn,” neither will there be a redemption price. The links between the Isaiah passages and 1 Peter are strong— Isaiah’s “I called you” is echoed in 1 Peter 1:15, “sojourn” from Isaiah 52:3 is in 1 Peter 1:17, and “not with silver” is in both Isaiah 52:3 and 1 Peter 1:18. We will also see material from Isaiah 52–53 show up later in 1 Peter, so it is entirely plausible that the author was thinking of Isaiah as he wrote this section.49 The audience might have caught the references, if they were sufficiently attuned to the overtones of the LXX. Regardless, they probably (in addition or instead) heard “redeem” and thought about redemption from slavery—especially as a large percentage of the audience members were slaves, former slaves, or slave owners.

73

74

1 Peter 1

Seneca on Abuse of Slaves As a result of their high-handed treatment the proverb is current: “As many enemies as you have slaves.” They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies. I shall pass over the other cruel and inhuman conduct toward them; for we maltreat them, not as if they were men, but as if they were beasts of burden. When we recline at a banquet, one slave mops up the disgorged food, another crouches beneath the table and gathers up the leftovers of the tipsy guests. . . . Another, who serves the wine, must dress like a woman and wrestle with his advancing years . . . he is kept beardless by having his hair smoothed away or plucked out by the roots, and he must remain awake throughout the night, dividing his time between his master’s drunkenness and his lust—in the bedchamber he must be a man, at the feast a boy. . . .

Slavery was a ubiquitous part of life in the Roman Empire in the late first century. The ancient economy depended on slave labor, and while some writers like Seneca protested the common abuse of slaves, nobody, unfortunately, advocated the abolition of the practice. Roman conquests of various groups in the two centuries before Christ led to a Seneca, Ep. 47; cited in Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (2 vols; New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2.267. relatively cheap supply of slaves in that period, and helped to fuel the rise of large estates with hundreds of slaves. But even small households had a slave, if they could afford one, to nurse the babies, mind the children, help with household tasks, or assist with whatever trade the householder might practice. Slaves were property, and so were available in all respects for their owners. [Seneca on Redemption of Slaves A deed of manumission from Hermopolis, Egypt: I, Marcus Aurelius Ammonio son of Lupercus son of Sarapio, freed in the presence of friends my house-born female slave Helene, about thirty-four years old, and I received for her ransom 2,200 imperial drachmas from Aurelious Ales son of Inarous. (262)

A will from Caranis, Egypt: Gaius Longinus Castor, veteran honorably discharged from the praetorian fleet of Misenum, made this will. I direct that my slave Marcella, over thirty years of age, and my slave Cleopatra, over thirty years of age, shall be freed, and they shall each in equal portion be my heirs. All others shall be disinherited . . . . (281)

A tomb inscription from Ravenna: Gaius Julius Mygdonius, a Parthian by origin, born a freeman, captured when a youth and sold into slavery in Roman territory. When I became a citizen with fate’s kind help, I got together a nest egg against the day when I turned fifty. Ever since youth I sought to attain my old age; now receive me gladly, O stone; with you I shall be freed from care. (284) Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).

Abuse of Slaves]

Slaves were regularly set free by bequest, but sometimes bought themselves out of slavery by saving money earned through business deals (either legitimate, with the owner as sponsor/patron, or shady, in the form of kickbacks or money skimmed, in the case of a slave who managed a wealthy man’s businesses). A slave could also be redeemed by a relative—a parent buying out a child, or one spouse redeeming another. [Redemption of Slaves] In secular usage as well as in the LXX, the word for the price to purchase a slave or to redeem the person from slavery was the same, the word tim∑ (translated “valuable” above). The same word means “honor” or “honorable,” and while the contrast with “silver or gold” leans toward the nuance “valuable, precious,”

1 Peter 1

75

the shame of death by crucifixion might help the audience hear overtones of “honorable death.” The author, writing “you were redeemed by the valuable/honorable blood of Jesus,” almost certainly meant for God to be the implied actor behind the passive verb, and “with the valuable death of Jesus” to be the means God used to effect redemption. Surely the audience had heard this sort of thing before in Christian preaching, that Christ’s death, far from being a pointless accident, was part of God’s plan for rescuing people. What might have been surprising to the readers in this passage is that 1 Peter does not say they were rescued from sin, or from this evil age, but “from [lit., out of ] the worthless manner of life you inherited from your forebears.” Their patrimony—their cultural heritage as residents of Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Asia, or Bithynia; as Pontic Greeks, Asian Greeks, Gauls, Persians, and Romans—all of that was mataia, “empty, fruitless, useless, powerless, lacking truth.”50 Readers might catch the implication that who they had been was like a form of slavery, or that their cultural background was for them like Egypt or Babylon had been for the Jews, something from which they needed to be released. Liberty Coin from AD 69 Note—they needed to be released, redeemed, from how they used to live and how the majority of their neighbors and family still lived. The point is that they had voluntarily chosen a faith that made Image Not Available them different, and that difference due to lack of digital rights. was painful. Just as “sojourn” Please view the published acknowledges how strange commentary or perform an Internet Christianity made them feel and search using the credit below. seem in places they used to fit in, “you were redeemed” gives them an alternative to thinking “what have I done?” God did it—God pulled you out of an empty, pointless, fruitless way of life, the one Reverse of Orichalcum sestertius of Galba (Roman emperor, AD 68–69). AD 69. Rome. Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven CT. (Credit: Yale University Art Gallery/Art where you were simply walking Resource, NY) down the well-worn path trodden by your ancestors. A coin minted in AD 69 shows Liberty holding a cap in her right hand. This cap was traditionally given to freedmen to show that they had How did God use Christ’s death been emancipated. to accomplish that? First Peter

76

1 Peter 1

does not spell things out as clearly as one might like. As noted earlier, the similarities between 1 Peter 1:17-19 and Isaiah 43:1-4; 52:3-4 suggest that when the author wrote “you were redeemed,” he was thinking about how God rescued Israel from Egypt and Babylon. Although the blood of sheep was part of the Passover ritual, it was not actually part of how God set Israel free, but how Israel was protected from the final plague against the Egyptians; furthermore, Exodus 12 does not call the animal an “unblemished and spotless lamb,” but a “perfect sheep” (LXX Exod 12:5). Many commentators suggest that the “unblemished and spotless” language was put here because the author was thinking of Christ’s death as a sacrifice, and sacrificial animals were indeed required to be without blemish.51 Sacrifices, however, “atone” rather than “redeem.” Sacrifices provide cleansing for the worshiper and the altar from the after-effects of the worshiper’s sins, whereas redemption restores ownership of property or, in the case of slaves, of one’s own body. Perhaps the author was reflecting on some of the texts on redemption: • Every first-born male, human and four-legged animal, belonged to God. Clean animals could be sacrificed or redeemed, whereas unclean animals and humans had to be redeemed (LXX Exod 13:11-16; 34:19-20) either with a sacrificial animal or with a monetary payment: “You shall redeem a first-born ass with a sheep; but if you will not redeem it, you shall give its value (tim∑)” (LXX Exod 34:20). • Israelites who fell into debt and were sold to “a stranger or a sojourner” should be redeemed by one of their near-kinsman as soon as possible: “one of his brothers shall redeem him, or his father’s brother, or his cousin [lit., his father’s brother’s son] shall redeem him, or someone of his blood relatives from his tribe should redeem him” (LXX Lev 25:48-49). • Leviticus 27 provides a detailed list of the value (tim∑ ) of persons, depending on age and sex; these prices are what the person would need to pay to redeem his or her life if they vowed it to the Lord (which they might do, say, in a desperate prayer for deliverance from danger or disease): “Whoever vows a vow, with the result that his soul [belongs] to the Lord, the value of a male twenty to sixty years old shall be 50 didrachmas of silver . . .” (LXX Lev 27:2-3).

1 Peter 1

77

If the author of 1 Peter was thinking of the cultural heritage of the readers as a form of slavery, then perhaps the second and third passages illuminate how he conceived of Christ’s death as a form of redemption. The readers were redeemed by the One they called upon as Father, who sent the Father’s Son with a payment far more valuable than silver. This is possible, but it still does not account for “unblemished and spotless lamb,” which does point more toward sacrifice. So perhaps we must conclude that the author has switched images when he gets to “the valuable blood,” and has moved from the metaphor of redemption to one of atoning sacrifice. With “the sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ” in 1:2, 1 Peter has already signaled that, like most other early Cicero on Crucifixion Christians, he understands Jesus’ death to be Cicero is defending a Roman citizen threatened with crucifixion as a punishatoning. In discussion of 2:18-25, we will return ment for treason and murder: to the theme in greater depth. Jesus’ death by crucifixion was one of the sigHow grievous a thing it is to be disgraced by a public court; how grievous to suffer a fine, how nificant barriers to reception of Christianity. grievous to suffer banishment; and yet in the Crucifixion was “the servile death,” something midst of any such disaster we retain some degree no well-bred Roman should even have to think of liberty. Even if we are threatened with death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the about. [Cicero on Crucifixion] One strategy many veiling of the head and the very word “cross” early Christians employed for making the cross should be far removed not only from the person of somewhat less repulsive was to emphasize how it a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurwas all part of God’s plan, “foreknown before rence of these things or the endurance of them, the world’s founding.” First Peter 1:10-12 spoke but liability to the expectation, indeed the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman to how Christ’s Spirit revealed the Messiah’s sufcitizen and a free man. ferings and subsequent glory to the prophets, and so undoubtedly the readers would find Cicero, Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo 16. proof of the pre-creation plan for the Messiah in the writings of the prophets. This time, the author does not linger on how or where the plan was revealed long ago, but on how the plan has now finally been unveiled. As with most New Testament authors, 1 Peter believes that his time is “the end of times,” and that Jesus’ resurrection will soon be followed by his return and Judgment Day. He, like the readers he imagined as he wrote, was “believing in God who raised him from the dead and gave him glory,” with the result that their “faith and hope are on God.” Love Each Other Strenuously from a Clean Heart, 1:22-25 “Since you have purified your souls by true obedience, aiming at an unhypocritical love for the ‘brotherhood,’ love each other strenu-

78

1 Peter 1

ously from a clean heart, since you have been re-begotten not from perishable seed but from imperishable, through the living and remaining word of God; because ‘all flesh is like grass, and all its glory like a grass flower; the grass withers and the flower falls, but the Lord’s word remains forever’; this ‘word’ is what was evangelized to you.” The first three of the four imperatives in 1:13-25 urge the readers to be serious about staying connected to God: hope completely in God’s grace, be holy as God is holy, and live reverently. The fourth and final imperative directs the readers toward an equally serious commitment to each other, toward philadelphia, “brother-love” or love for the “brotherhood,” the fellowship of believers. Philadelphia depends on the believers’ commitment to God, so the other three imperatives come first, and this one is introduced by the assumption that the readers have purified their lives by obedience. “True obedience” is literally “obedience of truth,” and one can either understand the genitive “of truth” to be adjectival, as I have, or objective, as most take it, and translate “obedience to the truth.” There is no theological problem with the latter translation, but 1:14 directs obedience toward God (“as obedient children”) rather than to any abstraction such as truth or grace. “True obedience” stresses, again, how the author is picturing his readers as successes; they realize that God is holy and an uncompromising Judge, so they have not gone half-measures in their obedience. As a result, they have “purified” their “souls” or lives and can relate to each other from “a clean heart.” The goal of such a disciplined life is not simply to be able to live pure, however, but to be able to love other Christians without hypocrisy or pretense. In 2:1, the author will list some things that would spoil the common life, like deceit or jealousy or slander. One suspects that the author’s ideal Christian community would be one where people spoke truthfully but carefully, and where nobody tried to take advantage of someone else; more on this when we come to 2:18–3:7. The imperative in this section is “love each other strenuously,” where the last word translates a word (ektenøs) that describes an allout, long-term, overcome-the-obstacles effort.52 It sometimes describes prayer offered up in extreme circumstances: the Ninevites, hoping to turn aside God’s judgment announced laconically by Jonah, dressed themselves and their cattle in sackcloth and

1 Peter 1

79

all “yelled up to God strenuously” (LXX Jonah 3:8). Having learned from this example, no doubt, the Israelites do the same when faced with the Assyrian threat recounted in Judith: And every man of Israel yelled up to the Lord in great strenuousness, and they humbled their souls in great strenuousness, themselves and their wives and their babies and their cattle, and every sojourner or day-laborer and their slaves, [they all] donned sackcloth over their loins . . . and fell on their faces towards the Temple, and put ashes on their heads, and stretched out their sackcloth before the Lord and draped the altar in sackcloth, and yelled up to the God of Israel in unison strenuously. (Jdt 4:9-12)

You get the point—“strenuously” is associated with times when you do everything you can do that you think might help you get out of this fix. That is how to love each other, says Love One Another 1 Peter—whole-hog, not holding anything Herbert McCabe writes, “Do not imagine that when the world sees how these back. [Love One Another] Christians love one another, it will be lost in admiIsn’t that sweet? Except that as all churchgoers ration. When it sees how these Christians love know, it is not always easy to love one’s fellow one another, the world usually goes for its gun” congregants. If I do not like Deacon Brown, I (God, Christ, and Us [London: Continuum, 2003] 13). It’s true; the same ancient Romans who can keep coming to my medium-sized church commented on how much Christians loved each and listening to the preacher and maybe never other also accused them of “hatred of humanity.” have to come to terms with my failure to love. It would be much harder in a house-church with fewer members, not as much room to be separate, and no professional clergy to carry the load. Furthermore, in a setting where living as a Christian feels like being a resident alien, I should stay connected to all the members of my congregation, since they may be all the friends, family, and associates I have. The section closes with another look at how the recipients’ experience of salvation undergirds their love for each other. Returning to the idea of God’s re-begetting them (1:3), 1 Peter describes the divine “seed” that produced the readers’ new life as “imperishable” and as “the living and remaining word of God.” Modern readers in church will need to be reminded that in the late first century, Christians hearing “word of God” did not think “the Bible,” but “God’s word, delivered by ancient or contemporary prophets,” and “the Word,” meaning Christ. First Peter probably had the former sense in mind, as there are no places where “word” (logos) is identified as Christ, and because of the explanation given in vv. 24-25.

80

1 Peter 1

To prove that the words God spoke through the ancient prophets were still living and in force, 1 Peter first quotes Isaiah 40:6-8, with its climactic “the Lord’s word remains forever.” But then he identifies that same “word” with the gospel message preached to the letter’s recipients by unnamed others (so also at 1:12), and so unifies God’s message then and now.

CONNECTIONS In the Commentary above, I agree with many interpreters that while “sojourner” or “temporary resident” may be literally true of some of this letter’s readers, it is also part of the writer’s rhetorical strategy. First Peter wants to put all his readers into one box labeled “transient,” no matter where they live, no matter what their actual status as citizen or non-citizen. This is also true of his use of “elect” and “of the Diaspora”; the author knew well that while some of those who read his letter would be Jews, others—maybe most others—would be Gentiles. Notice, however, that 1 Peter never calls his readers “the true Israel” or “the spiritual descendants of Abraham”; in other words, they are “God’s people,” and the author is not going to speculate about whether this displaces anybody else from that same category. It is an interesting strategy, no? You, whoever you are, whatever your people, are now no longer citizens of the place where you were born (later, he will tell them that they have left behind all remnants of their family/tribal/national heritage). You belong now to God, and you are God’s people. Where are you from? God. What language do you speak? God-ish. In the place of a story about a famous founding ancestor—a Romulus, Remus, or Aeneas—these people have the story of Christ’s death and resurrection and the promise that God has become their Father. It is not “My home is in Heaven / so I don’t pay no rent / Don’t work no job / just gon’ live in a tent”; while 1 Peter does have a lively hope for Jesus’ return and the rewards that will bring, he never says Christians are sojourners here because they are citizens of Gloryland. His point is that the readers’ commitment to Christ keeps them from many aspects of normal life in their cities and villages and makes them foreigners in their own lands.

1 Peter 1

That is simply not true of many American Christians. Nobody would argue that our current culture is Christian, even though Christianity is by far the majority religion; whether we are liberals or conservatives, we probably find a lot to criticize about the moral values of our society. We eat too much. We use too much water. We buy too much junk. We watch too many spectacles of questionable morality, interspersed with 15-second materialist propaganda segments. We use up, we pile up, and we throw away, and we too often fail to consider what that does to the rest of the world, especially to the poor. We do not like it, and we may even complain about it, but most of us do not go so far as to refuse to participate. We are mostly at home, not resident aliens, in our world. If we took 1 Peter seriously, we would identify ourselves with those who truly are resident aliens or transients among us. Lots of churches provide all sorts of wonderful services to the immigrants in their communities, and more power to them—that is the work of Christ. But 1 Peter suggests that the immigrant experience has paradoxical lessons to teach about how to be less American and more Christian—less attached to such a high standard of living, more willing to do unpleasant but necessary work, more accustomed to handling discourtesy and adversity. John Donne preached a sermon on 1 Peter 1:17 to a bunch of lawyers and legal clerks in 1621, and in it reminds us of how Godcentric this first chapter of 1 Peter is. God causes us to be newly born, grants us an inheritance, expects us to be obedient, and has revealed the words that can help us live rightly. “Sins against the Father then, we consider especially to be such as are in potestate [against God’s power], either in a neglect of God’s power over us, or in an abuse of that power which we have from God over others.”53 Donne reminded the clerks and lawyers that our time on earth, as a sojourning, is neither a permanent dwelling nor “a gliding through the world, but such a stay, as upon it our everlasting dwelling depends.”54 We ought to fear God, observed Donne, since our eternal life depends on God’s judgment—not with the sort of fear that paralyzes, but with the sort that keeps our attention fixed on God and God’s law; like Esther, who despite knowing that she might die, approached her husband the king to beg for the lives of those he had so recklessly condemned.55 In his conclusion, Donne suggests that his audience live so that they will

81

82

1 Peter 1

be able to pray, “‘God be such to me at the last day, as I am to his people this day,’ and for that day’s justice in thy public calling, God may be pleased to cover many sins of infirmity.”56 One last note about this first chapter is how positive it is. The readers have been reborn, possess the inheritance, are being protected by God, have been tested and found genuine, truly love God . . . and so on. Like most commentators, I do not think 1 Peter knew his audience personally, at least not in the way Paul knew his congregations. We do not get the sense that he has visited these people or lived with them, as Paul did, nor do we have any indication of conflict between some of the house-churches and the author, as there was between John the Revelator and (for instance) the church in Thyatira. Not knowing them, the author needed to make some assumptions about what they needed to hear—where they might need some extra instruction—and it might have been reasonable to think that while some of them passed through the testing fire with a stronger faith, others might have faltered or wavered. Whatever the letter’s first readers may actually have done, 1 Peter chooses to address them all as successes. The Christian who decides to continue participating in his family’s regular sacrifices to his family gods, or the wife who keeps quiet about her new faith around her non-Christian husband—in this first chapter, everyone is included in the praise, and nobody is left to the side. Later, in the hortatory sections, 1 Peter will make plain that Christians must make hard choices and be willing to suffer for them, but in this first part, he chooses not to divide his group into high and low achievers. Maybe it is a Mr. Rogers sort of approach, but it works for this letter. All of you are transients—not just the real transients, but all of you—so that all readers, if they enter sympathetically into this letter’s narrative web, are put in a precarious place. All of you are God’s people, without excluding anybody else who also might be God’s people; your security does not undermine theirs, and since we are all dependent on God’s mercy, does that not make sense? And all of you are doing so well, despite how hard it is to live as God’s sojourners in this world. By God’s mercy you were given salvation and put into the position of having to choose between loyalty to God and commonality with your culture. If you are succeeding, it will be because God is supporting you. So, reasons the author, let us celebrate the successes God is no doubt enjoying. It is

1 Peter 1

a great way to begin a letter of consolation and encouragement, and should inform our teaching and preaching in these troubled times.

Notes 1. Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 61, 63, 73. 2. F. Peter Lapham, The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition (JSNTS 239; Sheffield UK: Sheffield Academic, 2003) 119. 3. Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 19–20; John H Elliott, 1 Peter (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 315, calls the combination “paradoxical.” 4. Juvenal, Satire III; cited in Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (2 vols; New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2.239. 5. Seneca, De Consolatione ad Helviam Matrem, 6, 2f.; cited in J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) 13. 6. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 98–107; David Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers (London: Duckworth, 2000) 24. 7. Elliott, 1 Peter, 94. 8. Noy, Foreigners, 24–25. 9. Ibid., 76–77. 10. The foremost proponent of this reading is John H. Elliott, first in his A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), and then in his Anchor Bible commentary on 1 Peter (AB 37B). Elliott understands the audience to be Gentile Christians, or mostly so, who have immigrated to the areas addressed for a variety of reasons. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) argues that the recipients are Jewish Christians sent to these places as colonists. F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings, 119–20, 127–31, thinks they are genuine immigrants, probably from Syria or Mesopotamia, Christians of Jewish descent who left their homeland during the insurrections following Trajan’s failed Parthian campaign. 11. Elliott, 1 Peter, 312–13. 12. So M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 56–58; Donald Senior, 1 Peter (Collegeville MN: Liturgical, 2003) 28; and Green, 1 Peter, 16, who notes that it is unnecessary to choose between “literal” and “metaphorical”; the same phrase not only can, but necessarily does function in both ways at the same time. 13. Elliott, 1 Peter, 84. 14. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 317. Jobes, 1 Peter, 66, notes that no proponent of this theory has ever shown how it is consistent with the known roads connecting the regions. She sensibly suggests that “the list of regions simply represents the author’s mental map of Asia Minor, probably using the names of regions as he first learned them.”

83

84

1 Peter 1 15. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 66. 16. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 66, quoting Cicero, Post Reditum in Senatu 14. 17. Cicero, Pro Flacco 65; in Cicero, vol 10 (trans. C. MacDonald; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1977). 18. Green, 1 Peter, 19–20; Elliott, 1 Peter, 317; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 86. The NRSV translation paraphrases a bit to make this interpretation clear: “who have been chosen and destined by God . . . .” 19. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 86; Boring, 1 Peter, 55; Elliott, 1 Peter, 318–19. 20. Green, 1 Peter, 19–20. 21. Elliott, 1 Peter, 319. 22. Ibid.; Green, 1 Peter, 20–21. 23. Boring, 1 Peter, 55–56. 24. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 87–88. 25. Boring, 1 Peter, 56; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 88–89; Elliott, 1 Peter, 320. It is a bit of a problem that the LXX of Exod 34:8 uses a very different word for what Moses does with the blood, kataskedannumi, as opposed to hrantismon in 1 Pet 1:2. Nevertheless, the author of Hebrews used the same term as 1 Peter: “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24). The author of 1 Peter perhaps expects his readers to make the same connections that Hebrews does. 26. Stowers, Letter Writing, 61. The letter is dated early second century AD and is from Upper Egypt. 27. Ibid., 61. The letter is dated AD 58, for Oxyrhynchus or Hermopolis, Egypt. 28. Ibid., 129. The letter is dated second century AD, from Egypt. 29. See the discussion in Michael Joseph Brown, The Lord’s Prayer Through North African Eyes: A Window into Early Christianity (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 4–8; also Diane G. Chen, God as Father in Luke-Acts (New York: Peter Lang, 2006) 17–34, who rightly corrects the impression that Roman fathers did not love their children, or that the legal rights of the paterfamilias made them essentially tyrants. She summarizes, “The father figure symbolized power and authority on the one hand, and providence and beneficence on the other. Both sides of fatherhood coexisted in a positive tension” (33). 30. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 94. 31. Elliott, 1 Peter, 334; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 94–95. “Living hope” is different from “hope of living (eternally)”; for “hope of life,” see Titus 1:2; 3:7; Barn. 1:4; 1:6. 32. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 96. 33. BAGD, 49. 34. The Greek noun for salvation (søt∑ria) is feminine, and the relative pronoun is either masculine or neuter, so “salvation” is not the antecedent of “which.” Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 99–100, translates “for that reason”; Elliott, 1 Peter, 328, “consequently.” 35. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 104, argues that the participle is causal. 36. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 104; Elliott, 1 Peter, 344. 37. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 105; Boring, 1 Peter, 65. 38, Walker Percy, Signposts in a Strange Land (ed. Patrick Samway; New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1991) 3.

1 Peter 1 39. Ibid., 3. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid., 6–7. 42. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 117–18; Jobes, 1 Peter, 110–11, 120; Boring, 1 Peter, 74; James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Vol. 1, Prolegomena (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) 150–53. 43. Elliott, 1 Peter, 354–56, takes them as descriptive of what the readers have done or are doing: “having girded your minds . . . and remaining alert”; so Green, 1 Peter, 34. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 117–18, also takes them as descriptive of the readers’ present circumstances: “Therefore you, people whose minds are girded for action, who are sober.” 44. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 356–57. 45. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 119, opts for “an implied future force”; so Boring, 1 Peter, 75; Green, 1 Peter, 46. 46. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 120. 47. See the discussion in B. Diane Lipsett, Desiring Conversion: Hermas, Thecla, Aseneth (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 48. The list comes from Elliott, 1 Peter, 63, 361. 49. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 117; Elliott, 1 Peter, 69. 50. BDAG, 621. 51. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 128–29; Jobes, 1 Peter, 117. 52. BADG, 310. 53. John Donne, “Sermon Number 13: Preached at Lincoln’s Inn on 1 Peter 1:17” (no. 39 in LXXX Sermons), in The Sermons of John Donne (ed. George R. Potter and Evelyn M. Simpson; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962) 3.275. 54. Donne, “Sermon Number 13,” 275. 55. Ibid., 280. 56. Ibid., 291.

85

Stones, Sojourners, and Slaves 1 Peter 2

COMMENTARY Living Stones, 2:1-10

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall”1; Frost’s “something” obviously excludes humans. Stone walls, towers, homes, monuments, ziggurats, plinths, columns, obelisks, statues, cairns, grave-markers, altars, temples—stones are symbols of permanence, although people have always known that they can split or erode. A “bedrock foundation” means fixed and secure, while “like a stone wall” images security or stubbornness, safety or imprisonment, depending on the angle of the observer. When the writer of 1 Peter built his stone section, he knew that wherever his readers lived, they were surrounded by religions possessing a more obviously solid foundation and unshakeable place in society. By contrast, their own community was impermanent, existing only in those moments when the gathered few were a church instead of just ordinary guests in somebody’s triclinium. Think of it—no temples, no shrines, nothing visible. So 1 Peter, like the mason Cuyler Goodwill in The Stone Diaries, builds an edifice of stone: Already the walls of the tower have risen to shoulder-height. Some of the stones he sets are no bigger than his thumb or his fist, some measure eight or ten inches across. This morning, in the rainbow’s garish light, their surfaces seem to dance in rhythm with the clusters of goldenrod that had opened up everywhere in recent days. Sun and rain, cloud and light, flower and stone—they are each so closely bound together, so almost prophetically joined, that he experiences a spasm of joy to find himself at the heart of such a holy convergence . . . . What he feels when the finished stone slips finally into its waiting space is the

88

1 Peter 2 hand of God upon his head, the Holy Ghost entering his body with a glad shout.2

Structure This passage renews the call to devotion to God that was so much featured in the last half of the first chapter. The author uses several rich metaphors to invite the readers’ consideration: • 2:1-3: The first image is how an infant craves milk—in that way, the readers should long to drink what will help them grow into salvation, and avoid what will do them harm. As in 1:14-16, the author first states the negative thing to shun and then the imperative, followed by an allusion to a biblical passage in support of his reasoning. • 2:4-6: The second image is of a house made of living stones, built so that a “holy priesthood” can offer acceptable sacrifices for God. The final verse in this section is a Scripture quote on which to base the commands. • 2:7-8: The author pauses briefly to consider the fate of those who do not accept the gospel, linking his thoughts by means of other “stone” passages from the LXX. • 2:9-10: The author concludes this section with a collage of epithets for the readers, piled up to reinforce the point that the readers are God’s people. Whatever they were before, they now belong to God as God’s special possession. Crave the Unadulterated, Rational Milk, 2:1-3 “Therefore, since you have set aside all evil—all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, as newborn infants crave the unadulterated, rational milk, so that by it you may grow towards salvation, since you have tasted ‘that the Lord is kind.’” The one puzzling word in this section is logikon in v. 2, which I have translated “rational” but which is sometimes taken to mean “spiritual” (as the NRSV) or even, at a stretch, “of the word.”3 Logikon, however, does not mean “of the word,”4 and only a few verses earlier the author used the two normal words for “word,” logos (1:23) and rh∑ma (1:25). “Spiritual,” in the sense of metaphorical or non-literal, is a legitimate translation and would make sense in context. But it also seems rather obvious that in this passage “milk” is metaphorical, so if logikon means “spiritual” it is a bit superfluous. Its first meaning is “rational,” which in the first

1 Peter 2

89

Milk century was deemed to be the human capacity As noted in the comments, “milk” is used that, if properly trained, could master the pasby Paul and the author of Hebrews to sions. I therefore take logikon as an indication of symbolize elementary things that mature 1 Peter’s belief that, through passionate devotion Christians should no longer need. Barnabas, however, reflecting on God’s promise to Israel of a to God, the Christian gains what is necessary to land of “milk and honey,” writes, “Why then does overcome negative emotions and habits such as he speak of milk and honey? Because the child is those listed in 2:1. [Milk] first nourished by honey and then milk. So also, The opening word of 2:1 is another participle when we are nourished by faith in the promise and then by the word, we will live as masters (apothemenoi) that some (e.g., NRSV) translate over the earth” (Barn. 6.17). In this interpretation, 5 as an imperative: “Put away!” But with the “milk” is equated with “the word,” that which “therefore,” it may be kept as a true participle, every believer of every level needs. describing the readers’ progress toward salvation that provides the basis for the command in v. 2. “Putting off ” or “putting away” may have reminded the readers of how they laid aside their clothes to be baptized.6 It could imply that the author thinks these things may be present in the lives of the readers—he does write “put away” rather than “avoid”—but the same verb appears in similar exhortations in Romans 13:12; Colossians 3:8; Ephesians 4:22, 25; and James 1:21, so it probably is simply the normal word for such contexts. Malice The short vice list that closes the verse seems to focus Lou knew then that her mother on sins that damage community. The first vice is kakia, was tallying her father’s faults and perfidies. She did not know that pola general word for bad things, which I take to be the ishing this grudge would be her mother’s heading but some understand to mean “malice.”7 lone project for the balance of her life. [Malice] Next is dolos, meaning “deceit” or “guile” or Annie Dillard, The Maytrees (New York: even “treachery”; its negation, adolos, modifies “milk” HarperCollins, 2007) 58. in v. 2 and is translated “unadulterated.” Third is hypokrisis, which we take into English as hypocrisy, meaning “pretense” or acting insincerely. [Hypocrisy] The next, phthonos, is “envy” or “jealousy.” The last word, katalalia, might also be a category rather than a specific sin. It literally means “evil speaking,” so it might be intended to cover all sorts of negative speech; as many do, I take it to mean “slander,” a problem to which 1 Peter returns in 2:12, 15.8 Hypocrisy What gave adults the cheer to tolerate their “As newborn infants” has sometimes hypocrisy? Even his mother praised generosity been used to argue that 1 Peter drew from and hoarded; she preached industry and barely worked. early baptismal liturgies or from instrucPerhaps every generation passes to the next, to hand down to yet more children, an untouched trunk of virtues. tions given to new converts.9 But The adults describe the trunk’s contents to the young and the “newborn” metaphor is part of the never open it. larger theme of how the readers are God’s Annie Dillard, The Maytrees (New York: HarperCollins, 2007) 96. children: re-begotten (1:3, 23), obedient

90 Mother Nursing Her Child

1 Peter 2

(1:14), created by divine seed (1:23-25). First Peter uses the image of a newborn who desperately needs and wants to suckle as a metaphor for how much the readers should long for what God can give them that will help them grow toward salvation. It is for this reason that unlike in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 and Hebrews 5:11-14, the audience’s craving for milk is a good thing, not a mark of their immaturity. “Guileless milk” is milk with no strings attached and no associated guilt. The readers may, in fact should, crave it without second thought, since it only brings good results. [Milk (2)]

One might have expected, after “unadulterated, rational milk,” a “As newborn infants, long for the unadulterated milk . . . .” resolution of the metaphor along Terracotta statuette of a mother nursing her child. 5th C. BC. (Credit: R. Vinson) the lines of “which is Christ” or “namely, the Spirit” or “that is, the gospel.” Instead of defining “milk,” the author names its purpose, “so that by it you may grow toward salvation.” In Milk (2) 1 Peter, salvation is “preThe Odes of Solomon are Christian texts thought to date from the pared to be revealed on the late first to early second century AD, so roughly the same period as Last Day” (1:5), and the 1 Peter. In the Odes, milk is not only a symbol of paradise and God’s blessing (as in “milk and honey”), but is also the teachings Jesus gives the believer. expected reward for faith Notice that the Odist is not at all shy about gender-bending images, such as (1:9). “Salvation” thus has a Jesus, like a mother, suckling his disciples. markedly future orientation As honey drips from the honeycomb of bees, in 1 Peter, and the author and milk flows from the woman who loves her children, probably thought of the so also is my hope upon you, O my God. (Odes Sol. 40:1) word as parallel to “inheriSprinkle upon us your sprinklings, tance” (1:4)—kept safe in and open your bountiful springs which abundantly heaven for now, to be supply us with milk and honey. (Odes Sol. 4:10) revealed later—and to [Christ speaking] I fashioned their members “grace” (1:10, 13)—preand my own breasts I prepared for them, dicted by the prophets and that they might drink my holy milk and live by it. (Odes Sol. 8:14) revealed (or to be revealed) OTP 2.725–71. at Christ’s appearance.

1 Peter 2

91

“Grow into salvation” (so the NRSV) is a literal translation, but 1 Peter tends to use the preposition eis (which often means “into”) to indicate the purpose or goal of something. The readers are not growing into salvation as if it were a coat God purposely made too large for them, knowing that they would fill it out, but salvation is what they are aiming for, the target for their growth. To wind up this section, the author quotes a line from LXX Psalm 33(=34):8, which reads, “Taste and see that the Lord is kind; blessed is the man who hopes upon him.” The word Taste that the Lord Is Good May the sight of the graces for “kind” in Greek is chr∑stos, which sounds almost granted others lead them by the like “Christ,” christos; chr∑stos ho kyrios, “the Lord is hand, to reading, to meditation, and to conkind,” would have sounded like the Christian confestemplation, so that they may begin to taste sion “Christ is (the) Lord.” [Taste that the Lord Is Good] how sweet is the Lord, and how truly happy is the person who hopes in God and The readers have “tasted” God’s kindness through places all his cares in him. Christ, and so can be confident of growing toward Gertrude the Great, The Herald of Divine Love; cited in salvation as they continue to set aside guile, Hugh Feiss, Essential Monastic Wisdom: Writings on the Contemplative Life (New York: HarperCollins, 1999) 31. hypocrisy, and the like. Stones upon the Stone, 2:4-6 “Come to him, the Living Stone, deemed worthless by humans but with God, chosen, precious, and as living stones yourselves be built—a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, in order to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it stands in scripture, ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stone, a cornerstone, chosen, precious, and the one who believes on him shall not be put to shame.’” Imagine first-century congregations listening to this, believing as they did that Simon Peter wrote it. “Peter,” as you know and they knew well, was Simon’s nickname, and was the common word for “rock” (petros). Throughout most of this section, however, the author uses another word, lithos, also meaning “stone” or “rock” (the “lith” in “Paleolithic” and “lithograph” comes from this word). By using a different word, the author makes clear that he does not mean to give himself any sort of special place in the various stone metaphors he pulls together; yet it is hard to imagine that those original listeners would not have thought about how perfect it was that this stone passage was arranged by the Rock. The one spot where he does not use lithos is in v. 8—the words “offending rock” are petra skandalou, perhaps reminding the audience of Peter’s experience of first being named “Rock” for giving the correct testimony (“You are the Messiah, the Son of God”) but then being called a

92

1 Peter 2

St. Peter Receiving the Keys from Christ

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

skandalon, an offense, for rebuking Jesus when he first spoke of the cross (Matt 16:13-23). Verses 6-8 link three Old Testament passages, all having the word lithos, “stone,” in common:

• “Behold, I will lay for the foundation of Zion a stone, costly, chosen, a cornerstone, precious, for its Saint Peter receiving the keys from Jesus. Enamel plaque from a reliquary or altar. 1180–1185. foundation, and the one England. Musee des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, France. (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) who believes/trusts on it In this 12th-C. enamel plaque, Peter is confessing, “You are the Messiah, Son will not be put to shame” of the living God,” and Jesus is handing him the keys “to the kingdom of (LXX Isa 28:16). First heaven.” Peter’s text differs slightly from the LXX of Isaiah, but Paul, who quotes the same text in Romans 9:33, has some of the same differences. There were several variations of the LXX circulating, and so possibly they are both quoting from one of those alternate versions; possibly they are quoting from a Christian version of the text, or even from a Christian collection of Old Testament texts meant to support arguments that Jesus was the Messiah.10 • “The stone which the builders rejected, this one became the head of the corner” (LXX Ps 117[=118]:22). First Peter is identical with the LXX text. • “Sanctify him as Lord (or, Sanctify the Lord himself ), and he will be your fear. And if you trust upon him, he will be a sanctuary for you, and you will not meet him as a stumbling stone, nor as a falling rock” (LXX Isa 8:13-14). The first part of this text from Isaiah shows up in 1 Peter 3:15, and “he will be a sanctuary for you” may have influenced some of the language of 2:4-5. “Stumbling stone” is the same in Isaiah 8:14 and 1 Peter 2:8, but 1 Peter 2:8 and Romans 9:33 have “offending rock” (petra skandalou) instead of “falling rock.” The similarities between 1 Peter 2:6, 8 and Romans 8:33 and the ways both texts differ in the same way from the LXX of Isaiah argue either for the author of 1 Peter drawing on Romans or for

1 Peter 2

both authors drawing on familiar Christian uses of certain Old Testament texts. Either way, the audience listening to this section would probably have found it a familiar exegetical path, so that what seem like zigs and zags in the passage would not have sounded so abrupt to them. “Come to him” is another one of the participles that is often translated as an imperative, as I have done. One can also keep it as a participle: “having come to him” or “by coming to him,”11 but the “and” that begins v. 5, just before the real verb, would argue that the author of 1 Peter thought of v. 4 as a separate clause, making the imperative sense more plausible. The phrase “living stone” is not found in the LXX, and in the New Testament only appears in 1 Peter 2:4-5. “Living” must then be a reference to the resurrection, as in “God . . . has re-begotten you to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1:3). Christ is the “living stone” because he lives forever. Christ has been “deemed worthless” by humans—notice that 1 Peter does not say “by the Jews” or “by his own people,” and probably is not thinking so much of reactions to Jesus during his ministry as of current, general reactions to Jesus as he is preached to the general public.12 Many people, Jews and Greeks, as Paul noted, found the Christian message incomprehensible, unbelievable, and distasteful: “a mischievous superstition,” “a depraved and extravagant superstition.” But the resurrection shows that God deemed Jesus “chosen, precious”—words that will show up in the quote in v. 6. A living stone, then, one that humans generally find unattractive but that God has picked out specially and declared to be extremely valuable—that is Jesus. Come to him, the author argues—knowing that all those likely to be listening to the reading of the letter have done just that—and experience the same thing yourself. The grammar of the first half of v. 5 is a little tricky. The verb I translated “be built” could be translated “you are being built,” as a description rather than an imperative. Most think the passive imperative makes more sense, with God as the implied Builder: “be built” means “allow God to build.” The audience is to come to Jesus, the Living Stone, and as living stones themselves be built by God—so that much is clear. But the words “spiritual house” are nominative rather than accusative—that is, they further define the subject “you” and are not the object of the verb. Translations like “be built into a spiritual house” make sense, but are actually gram-

93

94

1 Peter 2

matically incorrect. According to the grammar, the “you” addressed in the verse are not commanded to be built into anything, but just “be built.” But “built,” while it takes no object, does demand some sort of target image. If the readers, as living stones, are being built by God, what sort of construction are they becoming? They are “a spiritual house for a holy priesthood.” The word oikos means “house” or “household” in Greek and can refer to a building or to the people—father, mother, children, extended family, and slaves—who occupy it. Because the author will address the readers as if they were members of a household (“household slaves,” 2:18-20; “wives,” 3:1-6; “husbands,” 3:7), one can translate this as “spiritual household,” meaning the Spirit’s household.13 “Spiritual house,” meaning “house for the Spirit,” would mean that the readers are a temple. The arguments in Christians as Temple favor of “Spirit’s household” include the All the following references use the Greek word naos, “temple,” rather than oikos, “house.” But “household code” texts in 2:18–3:7; the they show that the idea that the Christian community uses of “household slaves” in 2:18 and could be considered a temple was pretty widespread. “household managers” in 4:10; the (probable) use of oikos to mean “household” in • 1 Cor 3:16-17: Don’t you [pl.] know that you [pl.] are the temple [naos] of God, and that God’s Spirit dwells in 4:17; and the fact that the word “temple” you [pl.]? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will (naos), although common enough in the destroy that one, for God’s temple is holy, and that’s New Testament, never appears in 1 Peter. what you [pl.] are. [Christians as Temple] The main obstacle to this • 1 Cor 6:19: Or don’t you know that your [pl.] body [meaning the body of each one of you] is the temple interpretation, however, is that it makes no [naos] of the Holy Spirit among you, whom you have from connection to “living stones” or “be built.” God, and that you don’t belong to yourselves? One would be required to treat oikos pneu• 2 Cor 6:16: For we are the temple [naos] of the matikos as a new and separate clause: “ . . . living God . . . • Eph 2:21: In whom [Jesus] the whole fit-together and as living stones yourselves, be built up; edifice grows into a holy temple [naos] in the Lord . . . [you are] the Spirit’s household.” This is • Barn. 4:11: Let us be spiritual, let us be a perfect possible, but after the link between Christ temple [naos] for God. (see also 16:1-10) as Living Stone and the readers as living • Ign. Eph. 9.1: You are stones of the Father’s temple, prepared for the building of God the Father. stones, “be built,” as I argued earlier, • Ign. Magn. 7.2: You should all run together, as into requires some sort of target image. The one temple of God . . . . audience needs to be able to visualize what • Ign. Phld. 7.2: Keep your flesh as the Temple of God. God is making of them, and so the very next words, “spiritual house,” provide the best image. In fact, even if the author intended “Spirit’s household,” it is hard to imagine early audiences failing to connect the “be built” with oikos pneumatikos and concluding that God is constructing them as a “spiritual house” made of living stones.14

1 Peter 2

In 1 Peter, the preposition eis typically designates the goal or purpose of something. As a “spiritual house,” their aim is not simply to exist as a container for the Spirit; instead, God builds them and the Spirit inhabits them so that they will be a “holy priesthood, in order to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” First Peter is the only New Testament author to use this Greek word for “priesthood,” here and at v. 9, where it is modified by “royal.” It only appears three times in the LXX: • Exodus 19:6: But you will be to me a royal priesthood and a holy people-group; you will speak these words to the sons of Israel. • Exodus 23:22: If you will surely hear my voice and do all the things whatsoever I command you and keep my covenant, then you will be to me a people of my possession from all the nations, for all the earth is mine, and you will be to me a royal priesthood and a holy people-group. You will speak these words to the sons of Israel. • 2 Maccabees 2:17: But God, who saved his whole people also gave to all the inheritance and the kingship and the priesthood and the sanctification. In the first two passages, God is commanding Moses to tell these things to the Israelites in the wilderness; in the third, the Jews of Jerusalem are writing to their kin in Egypt, informing them of their intent to celebrate Hanukkah and asking them to join; in the view of the author of this “letter,” the story of Judas Maccabeus and the rededication of the temple was an act of God, who gave them the Maccabean “kingship” and “priesthood” and, through it, the “sanctification” that enabled the Jews once more to sacrifice in the temple. In the 2 Maccabees text, “priesthood” means the priestly institution, the men from the particular family group whose task it is to perform sacrifices in the temple. In the two Exodus texts, Moses seems to be saying that Israel as a whole was a priesthood— not that every Israelite would be a priest, since in Exodus 19:24 God speaks of “the priests and the people,” but that the nation as a whole is consecrated for God. There was only one priesthood in Judaism, males who traced their ancestry from Levi through Aaron down through the family groups that were by New Testament times divided into twenty-four “courses.” Members of 1 Peter’s audience who were ethnically Jewish probably heard “to be a holy priesthood” as Exodus used it,

95

96

1 Peter 2

as a vivid metaphor for how devoted Christians were to be to God. Audience members who were native-born citizens of the cities of Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Galatia may well have heard “you are a priesthood” differently, however. In a city like Ephesus there were many priesthoods—official city priesthoods, priesthoods responsible for various temples and shrines, and priesthoods attached to voluntary associations. Some of the most important Roman priesthoods were available only to the well born, and were an expected step on the cursus honorum, the path of honor or ladder of success. But many priesthoods were available to anyone willing to undertake the expense of caring for the temple and providing the required sacrifices (see [An Influential Freedman] for an example). First Peter’s audience would also be familiar with how new cults honoring the emperor or his family had been created in the main cities of Asia, as part of a political strategy for gaining imperial favor. When a new temple was dedicated, a new priesthood was generally created as well, sometimes with an endowment to provide sacrifices. NonJewish Christians might Sacrificial Scene well have understood v. 5 to mean that God was designating their community as a priesthood, empowered to offer sacrifices in the name of Christ. As a “spiritual house” and as a “holy priesthood,” the audience was to offer “spiritual sacrifices”; this is the only place the author uses the term “sacrifice,” and he Altar of Vespasian, Temple of Vespasian (AD 69–79), Pompeii. The relief shows a sacrificial scene: leaves “spiritual sacrifices” the sacrificer and his aide bring the sacrificial bull, while the priest, a veil over his head, pours the undefined. The phrase does libation over a tripod. Pompeii, Italy. (Credit: Wmpearl / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Self) not appear in the LXX, but This scene decorated the Temple of Vespasian at Pompeii, and shows how several texts use “sacrifice” Romans performed sacrifices for state occasions. The two shirtless men are to define other worship slaves who control the animal and kill it. The priest, who has covered his head activities that do not with part of his toga, is offering a libation on the altar while another attendant holds open the tablet from which the priest reads the prayers. Behind the require offering an animal: priest’s head to his right is a flute player, to drown out street noises and “the sacrifice of praise” prevent the priest from becoming distracted. 1 Peter’s readers would never (LXX Ps 49[=50]:14, 23); have seen a sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple, but would have seen plenty done like this.

1 Peter 2

97

“a sacrifice to God is a broken spirit; God will not despise a broken and humble heart” (LXX Ps 50[=51]:17; “May my prayer be directed before you as incense, the lifting of my hands as the evening sacrifice” (LXX Ps 140[=141]:2). The end of v. 9, after naming the audience to be a chosen race, royal priesthood, etc., says that they were so named with the Christians and Sacrifices Christians did not sacrifice, and Greeks and Romans result that they could proclaim the did, so the growth of Christianity decreased the mighty works of God, so that any of numbers of sacrifices made to the traditional gods, on behalf these biblical suggestions for “spiritual of the emperors, and on behalf of the ancestors. Roman sacrifices”—praise, confession, or any authors complained about this. Pliny, in his famous letter to Emperor Trajan, says that after his small efforts at suptype of prayer—would fit. [Christians and Sacrifices]

pressing Christianity in his area, “the temples, which have been almost deserted, are beginning to be frequented once more, that the sacred rites which have been long neglected are being renewed, and that sacrificial victims are for sale everywhere, whereas, till recently, a buyer was rarely to be found.” Minucius Felix, in Octavius, has his non-Christian complain that Christians “despise the temples as no better than sepulchers, abominate the gods, sneer at our sacred rites” (8.4). He continues, “Why do they have no altars, no temples, none of the usual images of the gods?” (10.2).

When 1 Peter’s audience walked around their city, they likely saw several temples, built to be as impressive and beautiful as their sponsors could afford. Some of the hearers had probably belonged to one or another of the cults that occupied the temples; all of the Pliny Ep. 10.96; translation in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian non-Jewish members of the congregaChurch (London: Oxford University Press, 1977) 4. tions would have participated in the public festivals that honored their city’s protective deities. Since their conversion, their worship as Christians happened mostly in private homes or apartments; there were no statues or dedicatory columns, no historic priesthoods going back hundreds of generations, nothing that anybody else in their city would envy. Calling them a “spiritual house” and a “holy priesthood” with important religious work to do was a way to depict their current religious behavior as honorable, meaningful, even admirable. The citation of LXX Isaiah 28:16 that closes off this section is meant to explain how Jesus could be set aside by most people but honored by God (v. 4), and how faith in him could provide a suitable foundation for a “spiritual house.” God declares that God is, even now, laying a stone in Zion—the hill in Jerusalem on which the temple stood. This stone is then defined by three words: cornerstone, chosen, precious. “Cornerstone” is literally “high corner,” and while it might mean the keystone, the stone in the middle of an arch that by weight and shape holds the rest together, the fact that people stumble over it in v. 8 probably means the author was thinking of a cornerstone.15

98

1 Peter 2

Cornerstone This cornerstone from the Temple of Athena in Troy (Ilion) was decorated with the sun-god Helios. Helios, Greek sun god. Cornerstone of a metope-triglyphs frieze from the Athena Temple in Troy (Ilion). Relief showing Helios, sun god in the Greco-Roman mythology. From the North-West pediment of the temple of Athena in Ilion (Troy). Between the first quarter of the 3rd century BC and 390 BC. Marble. Pergamon-Museum in Berlin, Germany. (Credit: Gryffindor / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Self)

The last line would have been important to the audience: “the one who believes on him shall not be put to shame.” Shame was a public value for 1 Peter’s readers: publicly determined, publicly undermined or maintained. Duties to Ancestors No one shall have gods for himself, either new gods or Abandoning one’s ancestral faith alien gods, unless they have been recognized by the was shameful. [Duties to Ancestors] state. Privately they shall worship those gods that they have duly Becoming a Christian meant that the received from their ancestors. In cities they shall have shrines; in believer was shirking his or her duty the country they shall have groves and places for the Lares. They shall preserve the rites of the family and their ancestors. (Cicero, to the ancestors and to the deities Leg. 2.19; cited in Valerie M. Warrior, Roman Religion: A that protected the household and the Sourcebook [Newburyport MA: Focus, 2002] 25) city—some ancient non-Christian detractors labeled this “hatred of “The soul becomes sad if it is left unattended by its descendants,” Baba Quan explained. “The farther we wander from the humanity.” If the believer had been a earth and water of the burial ground, the weaker our ties to our member of one of the cults, he or she ancestors become, and the separation is not good for the soul. It would be asked by the new faith to drains the heart of blood and leaves a profound hollowness in the go back on solemn oaths taken to the center of our veins.” (Lan Cao, Monkey Bridge [New York: Penguin, 1998] 59–60) deity and to the other devotees. And underlying the shame of leaving “Most of us know the parents or grandparents we come from. undone what everyone else agreed But we go back and back, forever; we go back all of us to the must be done was the central fact of very beginning; in our blood and bone and brain we carry the memories of thousands of beings. . . . We cannot understand all Christ’s shameful, shaming death on the traits we have inherited. Sometimes we can be strangers to the cross, a manner of execution ourselves.” (V. S. Naipaul, A Way in the World [New York: Alfred intended to brand the person so A. Knopf, 1994] 11)

1 Peter 2

99

treated as utterly without honor. First Peter’s rhetoric admits the reality of the “shameful” judgment—true enough, humans set Christ aside as worthless—but offers God’s counter-judgment instead. God called Christ “elect, precious,” and anyone who trusts in him, who as a living stone allows God to build him or her upon the Living Stone, the Cornerstone, will, in the end, not be put to shame. Stumbling over the Stone, 2:7-8 “Thus, for you who believe, honor; but for the unbelieving, ‘the stone which the builders rejected—this one became the head of the corner’; and ‘a stumbling stone and an offending rock.’ The ones who disbelieve the word stumble, for which [event] they were set.” First Peter does not spend much space on the fate of the unbelievers. He notes that they will have to answer to God on Judgment Day (4:5) and speculates that their suffering will be greater than what the readers have gone through (4:17-18). But in contrast to Revelation (from approximately the same period Judgment Scenes in Apocalypse of Peter and addressed to some of the same readers), The Apocalypse of Peter was written 1 Peter does not offer comfort in the form of between 100–150. In it, Peter, James, visions of God tormenting those who torand John get a tour of Hell and a brief glimpse of Heaven. The Hell section is much longer than the mented them. [Judgment Scenes in Apocalypse of Peter] Heaven section, and gives fairly graphic descripBut he does give this brief, Scripture-supported tions of the punishments of the wicked. For argument that the fact that most people reject instance, women who braid their hair in order to the Christian message is unsurprising, predicted, seduce men will be hung by their hair, and the men who slept with them “shall be hung by their and predictable. loins in that place of fire; and they shall say to one The quote in v. 6 ends with “you will not be another, ‘We did not know that we should come put to shame,” so the first part of v. 7 begins to everlasting punishment.’” Murderers get put in with the same idea, stated positively: “for you a fiery pit filled with venomous snakes; slanderers and blasphemers have to gnaw their tongues; who believe, honor.” The NRSV applies the etc. word “honor” to Christ: “To you then who In J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: believe, he is precious” (so also NIV, “this stone Clarendon, 1993) 593–612. is precious”). This understanding is grammatically possible and makes “honor” parallel with “chosen, precious” in v. 6, but the author’s strategy in this part is to make connections between what is true of Jesus and what is therefore true of those who believe in him. He is the Living Stone; they therefore can be built as living stones. He was rejected by humans and then honored by God; if they trust in him, they will never be put to shame and instead will receive honor.16

100

1 Peter 2

Not everyone believes, unfortunately. To help the readers understand why, the author quotes two more stone texts. The first, LXX Ps 117[=118]:22, shows how the “rejected by most but honored by God” can be demonstrated from Scripture. Readers will have heard this text used to refer to Jesus from Gospel readings (Mark 12:10-11 and pars;) or, in Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, used to predict Jesus’ resurrection (e.g., Acts 4:11; Barn. 6.4). In this first text, Jesus’ status is reversed, from rejected to honored. In the second quote, it is unbelievers who suffer reversal, from walking to stumbling. They stumble, in fact, over the very cornerstone that they rejected. Maybe the picture is supposed to be would-be builders tripping over a large rock discarded but left in the path, but “has become the cornerstone” comes before “stumbling stone,” so maybe we are supposed to visualize unbelievers stubbing toes on the new edifice God is building. The second half of v. 8 is offered to reassure the audience that the unbelief of most of their neighbors is no proof that their faith is worthless. God knew they would stumble over “the word,” or the message of the gospel, and so the stumblers were “set” for a fall. The grammar of 2:8b is also pretty elliptical: literally, “those who disbelieve the word stumble, for which also they were set.” The passive “they were set” surely implies God as the setter, but the “which” leaves open the possibilities of God setting their disbelief or their stumbling. In the first option, God chooses who believes and who does not; in the second, God decides that “stumbling” is the consequence of disbelief. Since 1 Peter does not return to this topic, it is hard to say for certain whether the author would opt for one version or another, and, as Jobes remarks, one’s theology will influence how one reads this text.17 However one decides this (or however God chooses one will decide, I suppose), the rest of 1 Peter speaks of Christians living in such a way that they can change the opinions of unbelievers. Even if God decides who will or will not believe, 1 Peter urges us to live as if those decisions are still open. Who You Are: Identity Collage, 2:9-10 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy ethnic group, a people for [God’s] possession, so that you may announce the mighty deeds of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Those who were once not a people are now God’s people; those not receiving mercy are now receiving mercy.”

1 Peter 2

101

The word-pictures pile up in these verses, each an important statement from the Old Testament about Israel. First Peter simply states, without any argument or explanation, that these titles now belong to the audience. I will come back to this point just below, but notice that 1 Peter says nothing about Israel or the Jews or about whether, if his statements about the audience are true, the prior affirmations about Israel remain true. He does not explain whether the audience is a replacement for Israel, or a new subset of Israel, or a separate-but-equal group alongside Israel. And in making these assertions about the audience, there is no reflection on how Gentiles might feel about being tagged “the chosen race” or how non-Christian Jews or Jewish Christians might feel about the same. First, let us investigate what the monikers mean. “Chosen race” (genos eklekton) repeats the word for “elect” or “chosen” that has been used several times already (1:1 of the recipChosen He saw that he was indeed elect and ients; 2:4, 6 of Jesus). [Chosen] Genos means a that the God of the universe was yet group of people understood to have a common more terrible than men reckoned. He could not be ancestor18; it can describe a family group (the eluded nor yet set aside nor circumscribed about genos of Joseph, Acts 7:13), but it can also be and it was true that He did contain all else within Him even to the reasoning of the heretic else He applied to all Israel (as at Acts 7:19). As Green were no God at all. notes, the audience imagined in this letter Cormac McCarthy, The Crossing (New York: Vintage, 1994) 156. bundles together many different ethnic groups, and so calling them all members of the same family group is a bold move.19 First Peter moves in the direction some later Christians would go in arguing that the followers of Jesus were a “new race” [Christians as a New Race], different from Jews and Greeks. To call them a “race” implies that their voluntary association with a tiny new widely despised religious Christians as a New Race movement is more than just a choice, but that The Epistle to Diognetus, probably written conversion has transformed them permaaround 150, argues that Christians are not dangerous or troublesome. The introductory nently—only God, by “re-begetting” them, section calls them a new genos, a new race: could make them all kin to each other and “Since I see, most excellent Diognetus, that you members of a different genos. [Identity] are extremely eager to learn about the religion of “Chosen race” appears to come from LXX the Christians . . . wishing to discover which God they obey and how they worship him, neither Isaiah 43:20-21, where God is promising to giving credence to those thought to be gods by rescue Israel from Babylon and make their the Greeks nor keeping the superstition of the homecoming glorious: “I gave water in the Jews, and what deep affection they have for one wilderness and rivers in a dry place, to give water another, and just why this new race or way of life came into being now and not before, I welcome to my chosen race (to genos mou to eklekton), my this eagerness of yours . . . .” (Diogn. 1) people whom I obtained to announce my

102

1 Peter 2

mighty deeds.”20 First Peter’s readers may or may “My wallet is full of identity cards, not have known the Isaiah text, but references to library cards, credit cards. It is a how God chose Israel are so widespread in the Old pleasure to carry out the duties of a citizen Testament that they must have known the phrase and to receive in return a receipt or a neat was originally applied to Israel. First Peter, as styrene card with one’s name on it certifying, so to speak, one’s right to exist.” already noted, does not speak to how God’s choice Walker Percy, The Moviegoer (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, of the readers affects God’s prior choice of the Jews. 1967) 6–7. The readers, then, are not being told to think of themselves as “heirs of Israel,”21 and although we theologians may want to resolve the “how” into either “the embeddedness of Christians in Israel’s story”22—a Pauline move—or, like Hebrews, into a replacement of the first covenant by the second, 1 Peter does not. He simply avoids (ignores?) the question. “Royal priesthood” is the translation most prefer of the next two words in this list of titles, basileion hierateuma. The second word, used earlier in v. 5, is a rare word that seems to mean “priesthood” as an institution.23 The first is an adjective, meaning “belonging to a king,” but it can be used as a noun to mean “palace,” and so the pair of words could be translated as two things rather than one: you are “a palace, a priesthood.”24 While this is possible, the pattern in the list seems to be a noun qualified by an adjective or prepositional phrase: “royal priesthood” fits the pattern better.25 By the late first century, basileus, which means “king,” was also commonly used for the emperor (as at 1 Pet 2:13, 17), Imperial Priesthoods and there were imperial priesthoods, spe“The Senate declared Augustus immortal, cially created in many Asian cities to serve assigned to him a college of priests and sacred in the cult of the emperor and his family. rites, and made Livia, who was already called Julia and Augusta, his priestess . . .” (Dio Cassius, Roman History [Imperial Priesthoods] Being named to such a 56.46; cited in Lewis and Reinhold). These priests (the priesthood showed that you were a person Augustales) could come from any class of society, of high status and in good favor with the including freedmen (former slaves), who were barred emperor. For 1 Peter to apply this title from most of the more traditional priesthoods. The only catch was that the Augustalis had to be able to bear the to his audience is to praise them as valuexpense of the sacrifices necessary to the office (see able, worthy, important. [Priesthoods and Identity

[An Influential Freedman] for an example of a freedman who paid for this sort of priesthood).

Associations]

The “priesthood of all believers” is the notion that every Christian has the rights and responsibilities of the clergy. First Peter does presume that every member of the scattered congregations that formed his imagined audience was responsible for public testimony to the faith (3:15), for good deeds done openly (3:16),

Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2:78.

1 Peter 2

103

and for proclaiming God’s mighty acts Priesthoods and Associations People formed associations in antiquity to further to the world (later in 2:9). 1 Peter also commercial interests (trade associations). They also imagines elders whose authority must formed private societies that mostly provided regular banbe exercised with care and accepted by quets for the members and an honorable funeral when the others (5:1-5). This letter’s readers members died: “In the consulship of Marcus Antonius Hiberus probably did think that “you are . . . a and Publius Mummius Sisenna [AD 133], January 1, the royal priesthood” applied to all of them Benevolent Society of Diana . . . and Antinoüs was founded, Lucius Caesennius Rufus son of Lucius, of the Quirine tribe, collectively and therefore to each of being for the third time magistrate and likewise patron . . . .” them individually.26 But since they These societies often had patrons who funded their beginoffered “spiritual sacrifices” and not ning with an endowment, and then the members contributed actual ones, in a “spiritual house” and dues, food, and wine: “It was voted unanimously that whoever desires to enter this society shall play an initiation not in anything that their neighbors fee of 100 sesterces and an amphora of good wine, and shall would have called a “temple,” they pay monthly dues of 5 asses [an as was a Roman coin].” Some societies, like this one, included slaves as members: surely understood the term metaphorically: as a “royal priesthood,” they were It was voted further that if a slave member of this society dies, empowered by God the Great King to and his master or mistress unreasonably refuses to relinquish his body for burial, and he has not left written instructions, a offer praise and to proclaim God’s acts token funeral ceremony will be held . . . . It was voted further to the world. that if any slave member of this society becomes free, he is They are also a “holy ethnic group.” required to donate an amphora of good wine. Ethnos, often rendered “nation,” is “a Members could aspire to become quinquennalis of the body of persons united by kinship, society, a position requiring both administrative and priestly culture, and common tradition.”27 The functions: Romans recognized the Jews as an If a member dies intestate, the details of his burial will be ethnos—not a “nation” in the political decided by the quinquennalis and the membership. . . . It was sense, since they were dispersed among voted further that on the festive days of his term of office each many political units, but united by reliquinquennalis is to conduct worship with incense and wine and is to perform his other functions clothed in white, and that on gion and common ancestry in ways the birthdays of Diana and Antinoüs he is to provide oil for the that made them different from the society in the public bath before they banquet. people they lived among. In Exodus 19:6, God is declaring the Hebrews, Quotes from Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: just released from Egypt, to be a dis- Harper & Row, 1966) 2:273–75. tinct people-group; for 1 Peter’s audience, the word has the same force. Like genos, it means that they are linked to other believers in a fictive family. “Holy,” as elsewhere in 1 Peter, means that they are set apart from other Gentiles to belong to God. This is also the thrust of “a people for [God’s] possession,” found in Exodus 19:5 and 23:22 (Isa 43:21 has “my people whom I obtained,” the same words in a different form). By refusing to do what everybody else does, Christians will turn themselves into

104

1 Peter 2

Being Alien There were real reasons why not hiding our true selves would have been unthinkable, why shape-shifting had been so important even by ordinary standards. America had rendered us invisible and at the same time awfully conspicuous. . . . “We’re guests in this country. And good guests don’t upset their hosts,” I had been told. . . . We would have to go through the motions and float harmlessly as permanent guests, with no more impact on our surroundings than the mild, leisurely pace of an ordinary day. We would have to make ourselves innocuous and present to the outside world a mild, freeze-dried version of history.

objects of speculation and ridicule (4:3-4), but that is part of being God’s people. [Being Alien] The last part of v. 9 gives the purpose or result of God’s creation of the recipients as race/priesthood/ethnic group dedicated to God: to announce the mighty deeds of God. “Mighty deeds” is the plural of the word aret∑, meaning “virtue.” Like “honor” in V. 7, virtue was understood to be publicly performed. The historian Polybius describes the funeral of a nobly born Roman:

Whenever one of their distinguished men dies, in the course of the funeral procession he is carried with every kind of honor into the Forum to the so-called Rostra; . . . All the masses stand around, as his son, if he has left one of adult age who can be present, or if not some other relative, mounts the Rostra and speaks about the virtues of the deceased and the successful achievements of his life . . . . By this constant renewal of the famed excellence of brave men, the renown of those who performed noble deeds is immortalized and the glory of those who have served their country is a matter of common knowledge and a legacy for future generations. But the most important result is that young men are inspired to undergo every extreme for the common good in the hope of winning the glory that attends upon the brave.28

Lan Cao, Monkey Bridge (New York: Penguin, 1998) 42.

Christians, of course, do not recount the glorious deeds of heroic men—at least not in 1 Peter’s formulation—but of God, who rescued them “out of darkness.” Like “the worthless manner of life you inherited from your forebears” (1:18), “darkness” is a polemical characterization of the customs and heritage of the letter’s recipients. That continues in the final verse of this section. Formerly, he writes, you were “not a people”; but they were—Asians and Gauls and Jews and so forth. Theologically, however, unless they were “God’s people,” they did not count (like poor Harry Ashfield in Flannery O’Connor’s “The River,” told by the preacher that he did not count before his baptism). Earlier, they had not been under the mercy of God; now they are. What a mission envisioned for these small house-churches—to proclaim the mighty deeds of the one true God to the world, the One who brought them into the light. Dorothea, heroine of

1 Peter 2

Middlemarch, finding herself constrained by convention, by family, and by her unfortunate marriage and thus unable to do great good in her world, says that nevertheless her faith comforts her: “That by desiring what is perfectly good, even when we do not quite know what it is and cannot do what we would, we are part of the divine power against evil—widening the skirts of light and making the struggle with darkness narrower.”29 Amen, says 1 Peter. Alien Life, 2:11-17

The hero in Carol Shield’s novel Larry’s Party becomes entranced (his viewpoint) or obsessed (his wife’s viewpoint) with labyrinths. On a trip to visit some of the historic labyrinths of England, he and his wife “settled in, renting a small Wandsworth flat and buying their own groceries . . . . They never lost, though, the sense of being travelers. All around them they could see similar men and women; the modern inhabitants of the world were wanderers, pilgrims, and the labyrinth was their natural habitat.”30 In this next section, 1 Peter reintroduces the images of resident aliens and sojourners from the beginning of the letter. He asks his readers to think of themselves that way and then structure their lives accordingly. A labyrinth is not 1 Peter’s metaphor, but it is not bad for conjuring up the image of living one’s life in this world as if one were always heading toward a goal one knows is there but cannot quite see. The walls of our imaginary maze could not be too high, however, because 1 Peter does not think of the Christian life as an escape from the world. But the Christian life is a path laid out by Jesus, and has a goal of eternal life with God; our anastroph∑, our “manner of life, is enough at odds with the way “the Gentiles” live that we can profitably think of ourselves as sojourners—or as people walking a labyrinth. Structure Most commentators agree that 2:11 marks a section break; 1:3 is connected to 2:10 by the mention of “mercy,” and 1:3–2:10 is marked by a stress on the audience’s identity in the plan of God. The author works back and forth between stating who they are— obedient children of God, re-begotten by God’s mercy, future inheritors of salvation, etc.—and what they must do—hope strenuously, be holy, etc. First Peter 2:1-10, which draws together themes of holiness, mercy, and election that were announced in the

105

106

1 Peter 2

first chapter, keeps this balance, matching imperative (put away evil things, come to him, be built) with declarative (you are a chosen race, royal priesthood, a holy people-group). Beginning with 2:11-12, there is more stress on the imperative for the next few pages of the letter; the author does not entirely leave off telling the readers that they are good and faithful, but compared to 1:3–2:10, the next part is more about what they should be. There are still few hints that the readers are failing to do the right thing and no descriptions of their situation that would allow us to think 1 Peter has any direct knowledge of the specific circumstances of the Asian congregations. But 2:11 has the author, rhetorically, look the readers in the eye: “I urge you to abstain,” rather than “abstain!” “Beloved,” the first word in 2:11, is repeated at 4:12, so it is possible that the writer thought of 2:11–4:11 as one long section, but this is not clear. Some take 2:11–3:12 as a unit, 1 Peter’s equivalent of the Household Code sections of Colossians and Ephesians. The Scripture quote in 3:10-12, following a pattern the author has already set, rounds off and supports the advice given in 3:8-9, and this division would have the unit begin and end with instruction to everyone.31 However, 3:13, “And who will do evil to you if you are zealots for the good?” returns to the “evil for evil” theme of v. 9, and the word “and” that begins the verse tends to link ideas in 1 Peter rather than divide them into sections. Certainly the verses in 2:13-17 belong together, as advice for all the readers about relations to persons in power. A section addressed to “household slaves” begins at 2:18, but somewhere around v. 21 it becomes clear that the advice given to slaves applies to everyone. In chapter 3, verses 1-6 advise wives of nonbelievers, 3:7 addresses Christian husbands, and 3:8 begins, “As for the rest [of you], everyone should . . . .” But where does the section begun by 3:8 end? The topic—not returning evil for evil, but suffering as Christ did—leads the author into the famous section about Christ being put to death and preaching to “spirits in prison” (3:19), which leads to Noah, which leads to baptism and then to prayer (3:21-22). Then in 4:1-6 the author comes back to imitating Christ by living entirely focused on God’s will, and 4:7-11 concludes with another unit of advice addressed to all the readers. In the end, then, although 3:8–4:11 at times seems to ramble, it probably should be considered a unit and as the second half of the larger section that began at 2:11.32

1 Peter 2

My plan is to take 2:11-17 together, since the appeal to living as aliens in 2:11 has much to say about how to relate to persons in power, the subject of 2:13-17. Verses 18-25 belong together and are close to the lectionary division for the fourth Sunday of Easter in Year A (2:19-25). The section about wives and husbands (3:1-7) can stand by itself, and then I will follow the lectionary in keeping 3:8-22 together (sixth Sunday of Easter, Year A, and first Sunday of Lent, Year B). Finally, I will treat 4:1-11 together (4:1-8 is a reading for Holy Saturday). Honorable Living as Aliens, 2:11-12 “Beloved, I urge you as resident aliens and sojourners to abstain from fleshly desires which war against your souls, by having your manner of life among the gentiles [be] good, so that when they slander you as evil-doers, by observing [your] good works they may glorify God on the Visitation Day.” Christian writers often called their audiences “beloved” even if there was no particularly close connection between them (Paul calls the Romans “beloved” in Rom 12:19, although he had not met them; see also Heb 6:9; Jas 1:16; 2 Pet 3:1; 1 Clem. 7:1). Sometimes it seems a way to soften a criticism or command: “But about you, beloved, even if we speak so [he had just called them babies], we are convinced of better things . . .” (Heb 6:9); “We are writing these things, beloved, not only to admonish you but also to remind ourselves . . .” (1 Clem. 7:1). The audience, hearing “beloved,” might expect a tone shift, and combined with “I urge,” they get it. First Peter calls on them “as resident aliens and sojourners.” The second word was used in 1:1, a form of the first in 1:17, so this is not the first time the audience has heard the language. “Resident alien” (Gk., paroikos) in antiquity meant much what it does now: a person living on a long-term basis in a place other than his or her homeland, without all the rights of citizenship. A paroikos might be a citizen of some other city—say, a citizen of Philippi who had decided to live in Corinth because of business opportunities or in Athens to study with some famous teacher. On the other hand, a paroikos might not have been a citizen anywhere—say, a former slave, emancipated by his Corinthian owner, who moved to Ephesus after his former master’s death and found work at the docks. A paroikos was a free person (slaves were property, not persons), and could be wealthy or poor, influential or not; many

107

108

1 Peter 2

An Influential Freedman From a memorial marker in Assisi:

foreigners, for instance, lived in Ostia, the main seaport serving the ancient city of Rome, to run shipping and trading companies. Some of them were Publius Decimius Eros Merula, freedman of Publius, clinical doctor, surgeon, oculist, prosperous, and these (either as individuals or as member of the board of six [he was a priest associations) used their money to obtain the goodat one of the shrines dedicated to one of will and influence of senators and others in power in the emperors]. For his freedom he paid 50,000 sesterces. For his membership on Rome. [An Influential Freedman] the board of six he contributed to the comThe majority of resident aliens, however, were not munity 2,000 sesterces. For the erection of wealthy or powerful. They occupied professions or statues in the temple of Hercules he gave 30,000 sesterces. For paving streets he provided services that were useful or necessary to the contributed to the municipal treasury city where they lived, but were always subject to 37,000 sesterces . . . . prejudice. As noted earlier in this commentary, city Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization governments sometimes deported them and some(New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2:259. times killed them with impunity. Relationships between the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt,33 native Egyptians, and ethnic Greeks living there became tense after Rome took over Egypt in 30 BC. The Greeks and the Jews, as organized groups of “foreigners” living in Egypt on a long-term basis, competed for favored status with the Romans, hoping to get relief from taxes and other concessions. In AD 38, Flaccus, the Roman prefect of Egypt, allowed Greek mobs to burn synagogues; when the Jews tried to defend their property, Flaccus put out a decree classifying the Jews as “aliens and foreigners” rather than as “resident aliens.” The mob took this as license for killing Jews, and the result was a pogrom: The mob hounded Jews from other parts of the city into the ghetto, tortured and massacred many before they could take refuge there, and looted Jewish shops and over four hundred abandoned houses. Overcrowding in the ghetto and exposure on the seashore, where large numbers for whom there was no room in the ghetto were forced to camp out near the cemeteries and rubbish-dumps, led to an epidemic. Poverty became acute as normal trades and professions could no longer be carried on, and when food ran short, Jews who ventured out to the city markets in search of supplies were lynched in various ingeniously disgusting ways. Jewish merchants arriving at the harbor were robbed of their goods and murdered.34

The Jews appealed for justice to Emperor Gaius (Caligula), who ignored them; once Claudius took office, he issued a decree improving things somewhat. The episode illustrates both the ease with which a government might sponsor or tolerate terrorist acts

1 Peter 2

toward resident aliens and the importance of having the supreme authorities well disposed toward one’s ethnic group, if possible. The second term in v. 13 is parepid∑mos, translated “sojourner.” It is only used twice in the LXX (Gen 23:4; Ps 38:13) and only once elsewhere in the NT (Heb 11:13). In Genesis and Psalms, parepid∑mos is parallel with paroikos, indicating that it would mean something close to “resident alien,” but in the Hebrews text it is parallel to xenos, meaning “foreigner, stranger.” If 1 Peter makes any distinctions between the two words, this one describes a person who is a more short-term resident of a place where he or she is not a citizen—a transient. In our terms, if the paroikos has a green card, then the parepid∑mos has a travel permit or student visa. Chances are, though, that 1 Peter uses both terms synonymously, to give the sense of someone living in a place not his or her own. Unlike all those great gospel songs, 1 Peter does not say or even imply that the real home for his readers is heaven when they die. Preachers and teachers will probably have to point this out, because other New Testament authors do talk about our citizenship being in heaven (Phil 3:20), or having been “rescued from the power of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of [God’s] beloved son” (Col 1:13). First Peter’s point is not that the readers have been given a new country, nor that they are on a journey to somewhere else, but that, having been re-begotten by God, they are now part of a new people-group and thus “resident aliens.” Most of the readers probably still lived where they lived before their conversion; they spoke the same language, wore the same clothes, ate the same foods. But they no longer worshiped their ancestral gods—at least, they did not if they were living as they had been instructed—and they no longer lived by the same ethical standards—again, presuming that they were living the good Christian life—and these changes separated them in real and important ways from their neighbors, friends, and families. [It Ain’t My Country] Such a huge change was not easy. By this point in the letter, 1 Peter has already urged the readers more than once to focus on God and to leave aside less worthy interests. In 1:14-16, he exhorts them to “be holy” by not being conformed to the desires of their former way of life. In 1:17-21, he calls them to a reverent manner of life. In 2:1-3, the imperative is to long for God’s nourishment, putting away every sort of community-destroying evil. Here, he switches from the second-person plural imperative form used in all

109

110

1 Peter 2

the previous exhortations to a first-person “I urge” followed by the infinitive “to abstain” or “to put aside”—no less of a command, and with the added hint of the author’s presence behind it. They are to abstain from “fleshly desires which war against your soul.” As noted earlier in the commentary, the problem of desire was an important one for Christians in the first and second centuries, as for other ancient moral thinkers. “Fleshly desires,” like “the desires you had formerly in your ignorance” (1:14) and “human desires” (4:2), means cravings or emotions leading one away from God; the vice lists in 2:2 and 4:3 are probably good examples of what Cormac McCarthy, All the Pretty Horses (New York: Vintage, 1993) 299. 1 Peter means. [Hermas on the Vices] The absence of any stress in this letter on ascetic remedies to “fleshly desire”—nothing about fasting or celibacy, for example— makes it likely that by “fleshly” the author is not identifying the human body as a danger. The sorts of sins listed specifically do not include some of the typical “sins of the flesh”—lust, adultery, fornication, gluttony. First Peter is not even particularly concerned about the sexual practices of his readers (a big difference from Paul, who nearly always feels the need to warn his readers away from sexual sins). It is also worth contrasting Hermas on the Vices the advice and commands 1 Peter gives The Shepherd of Hermas, in its Ninth Parable, illustrates how one may long for godly virtues with about desire—set it aside; do not be something akin to erotic passion (see [Shepherd of Hermas conformed by it—with that given by on Godly Passion]). The virtues appear as twelve beautiful other Christians of the period. Paul’s Virgins dressed in white who promise to stay with the hero “walk by the Spirit and by no means always because they love him. In the same parable, Hermas sees twelve more women, “extremely beautiful in appearcomplete the desires of the flesh” (Gal ance, dressed in black, belted, with uncovered shoulders and 5:16) stresses the need for divine guidloose hair. These women seemed wild to me” (86.5). These ance in order to overcome negative are the Vices that seduce the unwary, leading them away desires. The closest 1 Peter comes to this from the church (represented in the vision by a tower); when people dress themselves in the garments of the women in is in 2:1-3, where he urges readers to set black rather than the women in white, “they were cast out aside evil things like deceit, hypocrisy, from the house of God” (90.8-9). Hermas names them as jealousy, and slander by longing for Disbelief, Lack of Self-control, Disobedience, Deceit, Sorrow, God as an infant longs to drink milk. Wickedness, Licentiousness, Short Temper, Lying, Foolishness, Slander, and Hatred. “The slave of God who Mostly, despite the intensity of “war bears these names will see the kingdom of God but will not against your soul,” the advice is “set enter it” (93.3). desire aside,” instead of “cleanse your It Ain’t My Country What are you going to do? Head out. Where to? I dont know. You could get on out at the rigs. Pays awful good. Yeah. I know. You could stay here at the house. I think I’m goin to move on. This is still good country. Yeah. I know it is. But it aint my country. . . Where is your country? he said. I dont know, said John Grady. I dont know where it is. I dont know what happens to country.

1 Peter 2

111

hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts . . . lament and mourn and weep” (Jas 4:8-9) or “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim 6:12). The best defense against “fleshly desires,” according to v. 12, is a good “manner of life among the Gentiles.” “Manner of life,” discussed earlier at 1:17, means how one lives according to one’s beliefs or principles. Maybe “good” seems like a bland word to describe this, but because this word can also mean “beautiful,” it helps communicate the idea of “visibly good,” or publicly virtuous. By “Gentiles,” 1 Peter means nonbelievers (so also 3 John 7; Eph 4:17; Ign. Trall. 8.2; Herm. Vis. 1.4.2; and several more times in The Shepherd of Hermas). They “slander you as evil-doers,” the first specific instance in this letter of harmful things done by nonbelievers to the recipients of the letter. [Slanders against Christians] What the author intended by the end of v. 12 is open to some debate. The “they” who “slander you as evildoers” are the same ones who “glorify God on Visitation Day”—that much is clear. But one can imagine this happening in different ways. In one scenario, the present-day slanderers become Judgment Day glorifiers because they have been converted by their observation of the “good deeds” Slanders against Christians Most likely written around the end of the second century, the Octavius of Minucius Felix is a (probably fictional) dialogue between two friends, one a Christian, the other a practitioner of traditional Roman religion. In it, the non-Christian repeats what he says is generally believed about Christians among the general public. As it seems unlikely that a Christian would have invented such terrible slanders only to have to refute them, the Octavius is probably good evidence of the kinds of slanders Christians endured: Everywhere they practice among themselves a kind of cult of lust, so to speak, and indiscriminately call each other brother and sister, so that even ordinary fornication, under the cloak of a hallowed name, becomes incest. (9.2) I am told that, because of I know not what foolish belief, they consecrate and worship the head of an ass, the meanest of animals. . . . Others tell that they reverence even the genital organs of their bishop and priest. . . . This suspicion may be false, but at any rate, it has been attached to their secret and nocturnal rites. And anyone who says that the objects of their worship are a man who suffered the death penalty for his crime, and the deadly

wood of the cross, assigns them altars appropriate for incorrigibly wicked men, so that they actually worship what they deserve. (9.3-4)

M. Felix then recounts how Christians actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of a foundling infant (9.5), and then tells of how the common meals of the Christians are actually orgies: Their form of banqueting is notorious; far and wide everyone speaks of it, as our fellow citizen of Cirta witnesses in his speech [M. Cornelius Fronto, whose speech condemning Christians does not survive]. On the appointed day, they assemble for their banquets with all their children, sisters, and mothers—people of both sexes and every age. After many sumptuous dishes, when the company at table has grown warm and the passion of incestuous lust has been fired by drunkenness, a dog which has been tied to a lamp is tempted by throwing a morsel beyond the length of the leash by which it is bound. It makes a dash, and jumps for the catch. Thus, when the witnessing light has been overturned and extinguished, in the ensuing darkness which favors shamelessness, they unite in whatever revoltingly lustful embraces the hazard of chance will permit. (9.6-7)

112

1 Peter 2

done by Christians.35 In another, the slanderers, who know they are lying when they disparage the good-deed-doing Christians, are forced to tell the truth on Judgment Day, providing independent confirmation of the recipients’ good manner of life.36 In a third, the slanderers are scared out of their lying by a “visitation” from God at some “day” down the road and then, converted, they glorify God; or perhaps observing Christians doing good deeds is the “day of visitation” that sometimes turns slanderers into glorifiers.37 As indicated by the use of capital letters in my translation, I suspect that “Visitation Day” is the same for 1 Peter as Judgment Day— that is the sense of the phrase in LXX Isaiah 10:3, and 1 Peter includes references to “the last time” (1:5), “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:7), “the end of all things” (4:1), “when his glory is revealed” (4:13), and “when the chief shepherd appears” (5:4). Green observes that whether the detractors are converted or not, they will still glorify God on Judgment Day, as everyone will.38 True enough, but it is still worth wondering whether 1 Peter has any serious hopes that public do-goodery will result in the conversion of the skeptics. Clearly he does in the case of the non-Christian husband married to the exemplary Christian wife (3:1-2), and if he was at least somewhat optimistic about the abilities of the Christians to convert their detractors, it might explain why he has little to say about eternal punishment for the wicked. Respect and Reverence, 2:13-17 “Be subordinate to every human creature on account of the Lord, whether to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as the ones sent by him for punishment of evildoers but praise of do-gooders; because God’s will is thus: by doing good, to silence the ignorance of foolish people, as free people and not as ones having freedom as a covering for evil, but as God’s slaves. Honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor.” Go into any bookstore and you will find a self-help section with books on self-care, self-discipline, and time management. In that section, or nearby, there will be books about relationships that give different models for understanding one’s parents, children, spouse, coworkers, etc., and tips for making things better. Yet another section will be devoted to fix-it books: how to rewire a lamp, tile a bathroom, build a closet. You can find advice on travel, on

1 Peter 2

113

Hierocles, On Duties manners, on political strategies, on investThe Stoic philosopher Hierocles wrote a handbook ments, on managing others. on how to carry out one’s most important duties. All of this was available in antiquity as He wrote in the second century AD; unfortunately only well (well, not how to wire a lamp), selections of his book survive in an anthology from 300 years later. It addressed how to complete one’s obligations sometimes in the same compendious to the gods, to one’s native country, to parents, friends, treatment, other times in separate focused and members of one’s own household. Here are a couple essays. [Hierocles, On Duties] There is, in fact, of examples of how he writes: a tradition going back to Aristotle, where After discussing the gods, it is most reasonable to set forth philosophical or ethical writers give how to conduct oneself towards one’s fatherland. For, by advice to heads of household on the prinZeus, it is as it were some second god, and our first and ciples of household management (oikos is greatest parent . . . . This word [patris] also dictates that we honor our one fatherland equally with our two parents, Greek for “household”; nomos is Greek that we prefer it to either of our two parents separately, and for “law” or “principle”; so an oikonomos that we not honor the two together more than it, but that we respect them equally. (On Duties 3.39.34–36; in is a household manager or steward, and Malherbe, 89) oikonomia is the proper way to manage a household—the word “economic” derives After discussing the gods and the fatherland, what person should be mentioned before our parents? . . . . So, in order from oikonomia). Aristotle treated the to choose our duties to them easily, we should always have household as the smallest unit of the citythis summary statement at hand, namely, that our parents state; in his day, there was no “Greece” are the images of the gods . . . . (On Duties 4.25.53; in Malherbe, 91) with a national government, but a collection of competing cities like Athens and Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). Sparta. The householders—propertyowning, resident men—were the “deciders,” so a treatment of proper relations between the householder and the other members of the household (wives, children, and slaves) was a good first step toward understanding proper relations between householders, or between householders and their civic leaders. One can see, then, why 1 Peter thought a discussion of the ways Christians related to political authorities was connected to how Christian wives related to their husbands and to how Christian slaves related to their masters. Commentators sometimes debate whether the advice in 2:13–3:7 was intended (a) to make Christians look as harmless and normal as possible to nonbelievers, especially in response to slanders that Christians are anti-social; or (b) to encourage mutual support between Christians as a way of coping with harsh treatment; or (c) to help Christians find the proper balance between total separation from and complete assimilation to the “worthless manner of life inherited from their ancestors.” It seems to me that 1 Peter gives all three as reasons to follow his advice, and that these motives are not mutually exclusive.39

114

1 Peter 2

“Be subordinate” is the main idea in 2:13-17, and the audience is given specifics on “to whom” and “how far.” The verb, hypotassø, is repeated to slaves (2:18), to wives (3:1), and to “youths” (5:5). The word means to order something below something else; the passive imperative in 2:13 has the sense of “set yourselves under” or “be subject to.” It surely implies “obey,” but as 1 Peter uses it, not “obey unquestioningly”; the author sets up a hierarchy of loyalties that limits how submissive a Christian might be to the emperor, for instance. It also implies “act appropriately for your station,” which is not high—recall that the author addressed them as resident aliens and sojourners, not as citizens or householders.40 Many modern readers, including me, will almost reflexively resist being ordered to submit or to keep to one’s place—tell me I should not wear white socks to church and I may do it even if I would not have considered it otherwise. But for a first-century Christian, un-infected with American mule-headed individualism, who had not grown up with the expectation that one’s education, marriage, Trimalchio the Vulgar Freedman residence, and vocation could all be freely chosen, Petronius wrote the Satyricon in the mid-first century AD, making fun “be subordinate” probably went almost without of wealthy freedmen who had money but saying. Be subordinate to the governor? Duh—what no culture. In this section, Trimalchio and choice do I have? As a slave, be subordinate to my his guests are reclining at an unbelievably master? For sure, since I do not relish being beaten or ostentatious banquet, and the former slave is boasting of his wealth. “Scaurus” refers crucified. Highborn elite Greek and Roman writers to a member of one of the oldest senatorial were of the opinion that acting according to one’s families in Rome; Trimalchio is name-dropstation was honorable and that overreaching was ping, on the order of “Whenever Rockefeller shameful.41 [Trimalchio the Vulgar Freedman] 1 Peter gives comes to town, he always stays with me”: other reasons, as we will see. But if I am allowed to extend my estates to “Be subordinate to every human creature” is a tall Apulia, I’ll have done well enough in my order and a broad responsibility. “Creature” is literlifetime. Meanwhile, with Mercury [god of commerce] watching over me, I’ve built ally “created thing” (ktisis, the result of an act of this residence. As you know, it was a creation, whether human or divine), and the intercottage; now it’s fit for a god. It’s got four pretive question is whether the ktisis is made by a dining rooms, twenty bedrooms, two marble colonnades, and the upstairs aparthuman or is a human made by God. Commentators ments, my own bedroom where I sleep, and translators who take the first option often make this viper’s boudoir [his wife’s bedroom], the phrase “human institution,”42 but v. 17, “honor an excellent porter’s lodge, and enough guest rooms for all my guests—in fact, everyone,” tilts toward persons created by God rather when Scaurus came here he didn’t want to than human institutions like the empire. If this is stay anywhere else, even though he can stay at his father’s friend’s by the sea. correct, then starting with “human creature” and moving to the emperor as the first example is a Petronius Satyricon 77.4–5; cited in Naphtali Lewis and reminder that, for Christians, no human can occupy Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2:259.

1 Peter 2

115

Triumph of Septimius Severus God’s place. The emperor may be “supreme” in terms of human authority, but despite all the imperial propaganda, the emperor was no god. Be subordinate “on account of the Lord” begins to sort out relative authorities for believers. A Christian should be subordinate to humans such as the emperor because Relief from Severian arch (northwestern and southeastern sides), Leptis. The Triumphal entry that is God’s will; the author of Septimius Severus in Leptis Magna (Gloria Augustorum). Detail showing the emperor on his repeats this in the first line of chariot. Full-size cast of the bas-relief on the Arch of Septimius Severus in Leptis Magna, Lybia. This Severan triumphal arch was built c. AD 203. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art v. 15. This is not a “divine (PD-old-auto)] right” argument like the one This is from a triumphal arch erected to honor the emperor in AD 203. The in Romans 13:1-2; it is God’s emperor is in his chariot to accept the acclaim of the crowds after a miliwill that you obey the tary victory. emperor, but 1 Peter does not say that God put the emperor in place or that the emperor is the instrument of God’s will. [Early Christian Opinions on Christian Relations to Government] A Christian obeys the emperor to please God, not because the emperor demands it. [Honoring Rulers] The same applies to governors appointed by emperors (v. 14). Could the last part of v. 14 be a bit ironic? Officially, imperial officers were supposed to advance the good and punish the wicked, but everyone, including the emperors, agreed that many governors, consuls, legates, prefects, and ambassadors saw foreign service as an opportunity to make loads of cash from bribes and sweetheart deals. Even if 1 Peter meant the line to be delivered straight, we can imagine some eye-rolling in the audiences that heard it as they considered the motives of their local imperial representatives. Because it is God’s will—that is the first reason to be subject. The second is in the second half of v. 15: by doing good, to silence the ignorance of the foolish. “Doing good” in ancient Greek literature often meant doing public good deeds: paving the central market in one’s city or refurbishing an ancient temple. In this context, however, it is more likely to mean the opposite of being an evildoer; the term shows up again in the advice to slaves (2:20), where one is beaten despite doing good. Be publicly and obviously vir-

116

1 Peter 2

Early Christian Opinions on Christian Relations to Government Romans 13:1-7: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. 1 Timothy 2:1-4: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Titus 3:1-2: Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone. Revelation 17:1-6: Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk.” So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” And I saw that the woman was drunk

with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. Revelation 18:1-4: After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority; and the earth was made bright with his splendor. He called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! It has become a dwelling place of demons, a haunt of every foul spirit, a haunt of every foul bird, a haunt of every foul and hateful beast.” Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues. 1 Clement 60:3–61:3: . . . and deliver us from those who hate us wrongfully. 4 Give concord and peace to us and all who dwell upon the earth, even as Thou gavest to our fathers, when they called upon Thee in faith and truth, submissive as we are to Thine almighty and allexcellent Name. To our rulers and governors on the earth—to them Thou, Lord, gavest the power of the kingdom by Thy glorious and ineffable might, to the end that we may know the glory and honor given to them by Thee and be subject to them, in nought resisting Thy will; to them, Lord, give health, peace, concord, stability, that they may exercise the authority given to them without offense. 2 For Thou, O heavenly Lord and King eternal, givest to the sons of men glory and honor and power over the things that are on the earth; do Thou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and well-pleasing in Thy sight, that, devoutly in peace and meekness exercising the power given them by Thee, they may find Thee propitious. Epistle to Diognetus 5:9-10, 14-16: 9 They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. 10 They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. 14 they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; 15 they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; 16 they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; Justin, First Apology 17: More even than others we try to pay the taxes and assessments to those whom you appoint, as we have been taught by him. [quotes the “give to Caesar” story] So we worship God only, but in other matters we gladly serve you, recognizing you as emperors and rulers of men, and praying that along with your imperial power you may also be found to have a sound mind.

1 Peter 2

117

tuous, and by those means silence the slanders Honoring Rulers In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the proconsul against you. Notice that the author does not has been trying unsuccessfully to get the urge the readers to argue with their accusers, aged Bishop Polycarp to curse Christ or to swear and later commands them to resist trading allegiance to the emperor. Polycarp tells him he’s insults. Their exemplary lives will be their best wasting his time: “If you are so foolish as to think that I will swear by the Fortune of Caesar, as you defense. Verse 16 is a marvelous paradox. The readers say, and if you pretend not to know who I am, listen closely: I am a Christian. But if you wish to learn an are to do good “as free people” and “as God’s account of Christianity, appoint a day and listen.” slaves.” The letter, addressed to all the The proconsul then suggests that Polycarp try to Christians in four provinces, must be useful to persuade the crowd in the stadium to set him free. slave and free; the author will, in a couple of Polycarp replies, “I think you deserve an account, for we are taught to render all due honor to rulers and verses, begin a section addressed to the slaves. authorities appointed by God, in so far as it does us But there is no follow-up section describing no harm. But as to those, I do not consider them duties that only fall to the free, or to slave worthy to hear a reasoned defense.” owners; instead, there is this verse, which Mart. Pol. 10.1-2. makes the whole audience simultaneously free and slave. They are God’s slaves, even if they are free, since it is God who redeemed them (1:18); if they are slaves belonging to a human master, they are still God’s slaves first. Yet this relative freedom should not encourage them to act irresponsibly; freedom should not be a covering for evil. Here is how to act—here are your general responsibilities toward others. Notice that no distinctions are made for the status of the Christian—it is not that Christian slaves must treat people any differently than free Christians. The distinctions come based on who is at the other end of your good deeds. You can think of 2:17 as 1 Peter’s version of the Great Commandment. • Honor everyone—Treat everyone, every single created person on God’s green earth, with respect. [Honor Everybody] • Love the brotherhood—You have a deeper commitment to your brothers and sisters in the faith. To them you owe more than respect; they deserve your love. [Love] • Fear God—Where “fear” appears elsewhere in 1 Peter, I have normally translated it as “reverence” to make plain that it is directed toward God (e.g., 2:18, where the slave’s “fear” is not toward the master but toward God). This is “fear” as it is used, for example, in the proverb “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Fear in this context means deep respect and steady devotion.

118

1 Peter 2

Honor Everybody The first bit of advice, therefore, is very clear, easily obtained, and common to all people. For it is a sound word which everyone will recognize as clear: Treat anybody whatsoever as though you supposed that he were you and you he. For someone would treat even a servant well if he pondered how he would want to be treated if the slave were the master and he the slave. Something similar can also be said of parents with respect to their children, of children with respect to their parents, and, in short, of all people with respect to all others.

• Honor the emperor—The emperor, like every other human on God’s green earth, deserves your respect, but nothing more. Your reverent fear and worship belongs only to God. [Honor the Emperor] How to Be a Slave, 2:18-25

In commenting on the previous section (2:13-17), I asked you to consider the Hierocles, On Duties 4.27.20; cited in Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral analogy between this part of 1 Peter and the Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, self-help section of a big-chain bookstore. In 1986) 93–94. antiquity, I wrote, learned men used to write advice to other literate men about all sorts of Love things, including how to manage their The question was not death; living things die. It was love. Not that we died, but that we households. First Peter’s readers, having just cared wildly, then deeply, for one person out of bilheard advice about how Christians should lions. We bound ourselves to the fickle, changing, and relate to government, would not be surprised dying as if they were rock. to find that the next topic was household Annie Dillard, The Maytrees (New York: HarperCollins, 2007) 34. relationships. After all, philosophers from the time of Aristotle forward had often taken the household as the most basic unit in the city-state; properly run households were considered foundational for a well-managed city. [Aristotle on the Relationship between Household and State]

But—and this is a pretty big “but,” more or less fatal for my selfhelp analogy—nobody in antiquity, prior to the New Testament, ever wrote to slaves on how to be a good slave (more precisely, no surviving ancient literature predating the New Testament addresses Honor the Emperor O Master . . . give harmony and peace both to us and to all who inhabit the earth, just as you gave it to our ancestors when they called upon you in a holy way, in faith and in truth; and allow us to be obedient to your all powerful and virtuous name, and to those who rule and lead us here on earth. You have given them, O Master, the authority to rule through your magnificent and indescribable power, that we may both recognize the glory and honor you have given them and subject ourselves to them, resisting nothing that conforms to your will. Give to them, O Lord, health, peace, harmony, and stability, so that without faltering they may administer the rule that you have given to them. (1 Clem. 60.3–61.1)

For, in our case, we pray for the welfare of the emperors to the eternal God, the true God, the living God, whom even the emperors themselves prefer to have propitious to them before all other gods. . . . Looking up to Him, we Christians—with hands extended, because they are harmless, with head bare because we are not ashamed, without a prayer leader because we pray from the heart—constantly beseech Him on behalf of all emperors. We ask for them long life, undisturbed power, security at home, brave armies, a faithful Senate, an upright people, a peaceful world, and everything for which a man or a Caesar prays. Such petitions I cannot ask from any other save from Him. (Tertullian, Apol. 30.1–5)

1 Peter 2

slaves directly).43 Aristotle, writing about the husband-wife, father-child, and masterslave dynamics, addresses only the head-of-household male, who is the husband/father/master, the more powerful agent in each of the pairs. Stodgy old Cato, in his handbook on how to run a farm, gives the farm owner advice on how slaves should be kept in line, but even then he mostly assumes that the master will not dirty his hands by dealing directly with slaves, but will either buy or employ a manager. Here is an example:

119

Aristotle on the Relationship between Household and State The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday wants. . . . But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family . . . . Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household. The parts of the household management correspond to the persons who compose the household, and a complete household consists of slaves and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements; and the first and fewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children.

[The manager] must sort out disputes Politics, trans. W. D. Ross, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: amongst the slaves. If anyone has done any- Aristotle, Modern Library, 1947) 1.2–3 (1252b–53b). thing wrong, he must punish him fairly in proportion to the damage he has caused. The slaves must not be badly treated or suffer from cold or hunger. He must keep them hard at work to stop them getting involved in trouble or things that don’t concern them. If the manager doesn’t want them to make trouble, they won’t. If he does let them make trouble, the master must not let him get away with it.44

See the distinction? People in antiquity wrote about what characterized a good slave or a bad slave, gave advice to owners about how to get the most out of one’s slaves, and sometimes encouraged the owners not to mistreat slaves. But as far as we can tell, before the New Testament, nobody wrote on “how to be a slave” with the assumption that slaves would be the audience. In the New Testament, there are four “advice” sections addressed directly to slaves: 1 Corinthians 7:21-24; Colossians 3:22–4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9; and Titus 2:9-10. First Timothy 6:1-2 discusses proper slave conduct, but is addressed to Timothy, who is charged to teach the slaves how to behave. Paul’s short paragraph in 1 Corinthians 7 speaks to slaves but only on the issue of how the near return of Christ should affect their desire to be free; it does not discuss how slaves ought to behave toward masters, and so is not much parallel to our 1 Peter passage. The others just named do indeed give advice on proper slave behavior toward masters, and it will be interesting to compare them to 1 Peter’s thoughts.

120

1 Peter 2

Before analyzing this specific text, let us pause to consider the incontrovertible facts that (1) no one in the Bible ever said clearly that slavery was evil; (2) Christians in the first and second centuries and beyond who owned slaves used texts like 1 Peter 2:18-25 to argue that slaves should know their place—in other words, not only did texts such as these regulate, rather than critique, a systemic evil, but they also helped to quash attempted critiques. While The Shepherd of Hermas speaks of “redeeming the slaves of God from their calamities” (38.10; = Herm. Mand. 8.1.10), Ignatius exhorts Polycarp not to allow slaves to be too anxious to be manumitted out of the common fund, “lest they be found slaves of passion” (Ign. Pol. 4.3). The “good” slave, in other words, will not allow his or her desire for freedom to get in the way of service. All this is disgusting, tragic, discouraging, and embarrassing. Early Christian responses to slavery ought to be for us a powerful warning to be aware of our own blind spots. There are ways our culture organizes life that we should resist, but we do not because of how fixed or right they seem. We can see clearly how our ancestors in the faith should have spoken up and spoken out; where will our descendants criticize us? Obedient, Suffering Slaves, 2:18-20 “You household slaves45 [must be subordinate to everyone] by being subordinate to your masters, in all reverence, not only to the good and gentle but also to the harsh. For this is to your credit, if through a consciousness of God someone endures sorrow, suffering unjustly. For what glory is it, if you endure being beaten when you sin? But if you do good deeds and endure suffering, this is credit with God.” First, a vocabulary lesson: As explained earlier, the Greek word for “household” is oikos. That word means the building, but even more the people who occupy it: the head of household (oikodespot∑s, “master of the household,” or just despot∑s, “master”); the wife, children, and any other family members living with them; a household manager (oikonomos), if the household was large enough to warrant one; and slaves. Doulos (“slave,” or “male slave”) and doul∑ (“female slave”) are the words most often used in the New Testament to refer to slaves, and are the most generic terms. The term used by 1 Peter is oiket∑s, “household slave”—perhaps because he just used doulos in v. 16 to refer to all the believers (“God’s slaves”), he used another term to make it clear he meant

1 Peter 2

121

actual, not metaphorical, slavery. Perhaps the author also assumes that the only slaves who might have opportunity to hear his letter read were household slaves. Next, some background for understanding first-century slavery: Most ancient slaves were slaves by virtue of (1) being captured in war or (2) being born to slave parents. Other, less frequent causes of enslavement include (3) being kidnapped (this is a great theme of ancient plays and novels, so it must have happened at least sometimes), (4) selling themselves or being sold for debts, (5) being orphaned or exposed as an infant and being sold by whatever temple or slave-dealer took the infant on, or (6) voluntary slavery, which foreigners sometimes undertook on the promise or presumption that they would receive freedom and citizenship upon the master’s death in return for faithful service. Slavery was practiced everywhere we know about, and the impression from ancient literature is that only the poorest householders would have made do with no slaves at all. Slaves did all sorts of manual labor, from the most miserable who worked in copper mines or at the oars in galleys to those who performed farm labor, manufacturing jobs, child care, house cleaning, and cooking. Being property, a firstcentury slave had no legal recourse to the treatment he or she received from the master. Slaves could be beaten, put on short rations, or—if the slave was considered intransigent—handed over to professional torturers for punishment or crucifixion. [Scars Prove the Slave] They could be used sexually by the master or mistress (see [Seneca on Abuse of Slaves]) or by anyone to whom Scars Prove the Slave the master granted permission—house guests, In Plautus’s comedy The Rope, a pair of young women are the property of a pimp for instance—and so long as the freeborn named Labrax. In this scene, Labrax—a free man, person remained in control, not acting lovealthough low in status because of his occupastruck or smitten, there was no shame attached tion—is being harassed by the slave Trachalio. to such behavior. Labrax calls Trachalio “gallows-bait”—because slaves can always be crucified by their masters if “No legal recourse” is not the same as “helpthey are too hard to handle—and Trachalio the less.” The Tricky Slave, a staple of the popular slave answers, “All right, gallows-bait am I, and comedies of the day, is a caricature built on the you’re a gentleman.” But then Trachalio suggests fact that slaves often found ways to resist that Labrax may not be a gentleman after all, but may have been enslaved at some point in his life: the wills of their masters. Plautus’s slaves lie, “Come on,” he challenges Labrax, “strip and I’ll dodge work, hatch schemes, and in general act prove it to you. If there aren’t more blisters on dishonorably—except for the slaves who are your back than bolts in a battleship, never believe actually free-born people captured by pirates me.” and illegally made slaves. The underlying and The Rope, ll. 735-55, in The Rope and Other Plays (trans. E. F. Watlington; New York: Penguin, 1964) 120–21.

122

1 Peter 2

commonly accepted premise of Plautus’s characterization is that slaves were naturally servile and without honor. One cannot expect them to behave like gentlemen. “Household slaves must be subordinate” is perhaps another example of a participle that many suspect is Image Not Available acting like an imperative. But the due to lack of digital rights. same verb appears as a true imperaPlease view the published tive in v. 13, and probably 1 Peter commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below. means “be subordinate to every human creature” as a universal command, of which v. 18 is a specific instance. “In all reverence” is literally “in (or with) all fear,” and were it not for the careful distinction between “fear God; respect the emperor” in v. 17, one might think Note the exaggerated, even inhuman features characteristic of 1 Peter meant for the fear to go the belief that slaves were not persons. toward the master.46 Other Terracotta statuettes of comic actors in slave masks and costumes, Etruscan, 2d C. BC. British Museum, London. (Credit: R. Vinson) Christian texts from the late first to early second century about slaves obeying masters are divided on this issue: Comic Actors in Slave Masks and Costumes

• Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey in everything your “lords” according to the flesh, not in pretense as eye-pleasers, but with sincere hearts, as those who fear the Lord. • Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh with “fear and trembling” in the sincerity of your hearts, as if [you were obeying] Christ, not in pretense as eye-pleasers but as Christ’s slaves, doing the will of God from the soul. • Titus 2:9-10: Slaves, be subordinate to your own masters in everything, so that you are well-pleasing, not fractious, not thieving, but demonstrating all good faith, so that in all things they may adorn the teaching of God our Savior. • Didache 4:11: You slaves, be subordinate to your “lords” as a type for God in modesty and fear.

1 Peter 2

123

In Colossians, the fear is clearly for the Lord; in Ephesians and Didache, it could go either way; Titus does not mention fear. If the master is to be seen as a type of God or Christ, as in Ephesians and Didache, then it makes sense for fear, in the sense of reverence, to be given to the master. But 1 Peter does not make the connection between master and Christ, but between the slave and Christ, so “in all fear” is meant to be the slave’s attitude toward God.47 [Fear as a Motivator for Slaves]

So the slave must be subordinate—obedient, “set in order under” the master (see the earlier discussion about this word in comments on 2:13). No surprise there to 1 Peter’s audience; frankly, what choice did they have, if they wanted to survive? Fear as a Motivator for Slaves But the first motive—in all reverence—makes This is your proof of a good slave who looks after his master’s business, sees to subordination a Christian act, in keeping with it, gives it his care and consideration . . . . The the larger principle that Christ’s followers must fellow that’s got his wits in the proper place be subordinate to everybody. Just so we are ought to think more of his back than his gullet, certain 1 Peter means every-dang-body, he spells more of his shanks than his belly. He’d better recollect how good-for-nothings, lazy, rascally it out: “not only to the good and gentle but also fellows, are rewarded by their masters: whipto the harsh.” “Good,” “gentle,” and “harsh” are pings, shackles, work in the mill, exhaustion, all meant to modify “masters,” and as specific famine, freezing stiff—these are the rewards of advice to slaves, one might again ask what laziness. I’m badly afraid of such bad things, personally; that’s why I’ve made up my mind to lead options slaves had on this score. They could a good life rather than a bad one . . . . That’s why work slower, act less competent, indulge in what I follow master’s orders, attend to them properly one might think of as passive-aggressive strateand sedately . . . . I must have a sense of fear, I gies of resistance, but in the end they would must keep straight, so as to be on hand for master anywhere. have to obey mean and cruel masters. Other Plautus, Men. 968–82. non-slave members of the congregation, however, might not feel obligated to be subordinate or even respectful to the harsh and overbearing. First Peter is using the address to the slaves to teach the wider congregation something about the extent to which Jesus’ disciples must humble themselves before the world. Many commentators conclude that this section only addresses slaves who serve non-Christian masters.48 This is certainly a possible reading, since there is no corresponding “masters” section to balance this address to slaves. It is unlikely that 1 Peter imagined there were no Christian slave owners among the congregations he was addressing; slavery, as noted, was widespread, and Acts, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy all testify to how Christians owned other Christians as slaves. While Paul may pos-

124

1 Peter 2

sibly hint that Philemon should free Onesimus, he does not command it, and none of the other texts show any embarrassment about one believer owning another. Furthermore, Ignatius, writing to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia, advises the bishop to caution slaves about wanting to use church funds to purchase their freedom (Ign. Pol. 4.3), and Polycarp himself apparently had household slaves who betrayed him to the authorities (Mart. Pol. 6). It is likely, then, that the author of 1 Peter knew that most congregations in his imagined audience would contain slaves and slave owners, some of the latter owning some of the former. Did he have no advice for the owners? It is unlikely; since they must have been presumed to be in the audience, we can be certain that 1 Peter included them in the general advice. Back to the point: in advising Christian slaves to be subordinate to all sorts of masters, the good and gentle as well as the harsh, 1 Peter does not distinguish between slaves who serve Christians and slaves who serve nonbelievers. That could be because 1 Peter is only considering the latter case, but might just as easily be because, from the slave’s point of view, the defining issue is how the master behaves more than whom he worships. Christian slave owners, hearing 2:18 read in their congregation, would most likely have assumed that 1 Peter was talking about them, rather than to them—were they the good and gentle type or the harsh? Slaves could expect to suffer—it was in the nature of things. Even “good and gentle” masters considered it sensible to punish slaves if they did wrong, as Cato says, “in proportion to the damage he has caused.” Xenophon writes, “Is it not the case that [masters] control any inclinations [of slaves] towards lechery by starving them? . . . Force the laziness out of them with beatings?”49 As for the “harsh”—the medical writer Galen, urging moderation in corporal punishment of slaves, says “there are other people who do not just hit their slaves, but kick them and gouge out their eyes and strike them with a pen if they happen to be holding one.”50 [A Slave’s Life] So just as the author of 1 Peter could assume that slaves were listening to the letter being read, he could assume that they suffered physically from time to time, depending on the temperament of their masters. How should the Christian slave think about this? If the slave had done something wrong—1 Peter actually uses the word “sin,” forcing the slaves to think of disobedience as a theological rather than simply a pragmatic issue—and punishment

1 Peter 2

125

A Slave’s Life followed, well, no glory there. First Peter is In the comedies of Plautus, the second-century not interested in those cases, where the rules BC Roman playwright, a “tricky slave” is almost were applied equitably within an unjust always trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his system. That is life. But if you slaves “do master. Although Plautus’s slaves are comic characters, they also speak honestly from time to time about good” and, on account of your conscioushow awful the experience of slavery was. ness of God, bear and patiently endure unjust suffering, that counts. The phrase is It’s a dog’s life, working for a man with money . . . . I say it’s no fun being a rich man’s slave. Work, work, literally “this is grace with God,” and poswork, from morning till night, and night till morning. “Do sibly the intent is to say that God’s grace is this, go there, say that”—you can’t get a wink of sleep. what enables the bearing up. But charis, While he, the rich master, never does a stroke of work. Anything he happens to think of, he wants it done; just “grace, gift,” also can mean “credit,” in the takes it for granted, never mind the trouble it gives you. sense of “a point in your favor,” and as it No, it’s no fun being a slave. And it’s not just the work, seems to be parallel in meaning to kleos, but knowing you’re a slave, and nothing can alter it. (Amph., 166–75, in Rope, 233–34) “fame, glory,” the latter sense seems to be what 1 Peter intended.51 Both Greeks and Later in Amphitryon, the god Mercury has changed Romans tended to think all human and himself to look precisely like a slave named Sosia, who divine interactions worked that way. A is trying to return to his master’s house. Sosia says, “He might easily be me . . . leg, foot, height, haircut, patron, for instance, endows an association eyes, nose, mouth, cheeks, chin, beard, neck . . . the for less well-off craftspeople and is naturally lot. There’s no denying it. If he’s got a back striped with made the association’s first officer. He serves whip scars, he’s me.” (Amph., 443–46; in Rope, 245) his term, and when he hands the trappings The Rope and Other Plays (trans. E. F. Watlington; New York: Penguin, of his office to the next person, the associa1964). tion votes him an honorary title for life, with special remembrances on his birthday and an inscribed stone that publicly celebrates his generosity. He does good and gains credit, standing, and reputation in the community—some small measure of fame. [The Rag Dealers Honor Their Patron] In like manner, the slave who bears up gains charis, but with God, rather than with the community or with the master. Think about how Christian slave owners might hear this. Doubtless some of them had handed out undeserved beatings to their slaves. Being reminded that God keeps track of unjust suffering might prompt them to be more careful. As for the slaves themselves, it may have helped to be told that their unmerited suffering mattered to God. In fact, the author’s strategy in this section seems to be to make slavery a theological vocation. Slaves subordinate themselves “in all fear” or “with all reverence” to God (v. 18); the opposite of being subordinate is “sin” rather than “being insubordinate” (v. 20); unjust suffering is favorably noted by God (vv. 19, 20); and the motivation for patient suffering is “because of

126

1 Peter 2

The Rag Dealers Honor Their Patron In the [sixth] consulship of the Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus . . . , in the temple of the Society of Laborers and Rag Dealers of Regium. Whereas on the proposal of the treasurers . . . it was stated that Tutilius Julianus, a generous gentleman distinguished for his manner of life, his unassuming nature, and his innate modesty, ought to be adopted by our society as its patron, so that the evidence of our decision might serve as an example to other [prospective benefactors] . . . that he should be besought to undertake, if he please, the function of patron of our society, and that a bronze tablet inscribed with this resolution should be placed in his house. From Reggio Emilia, Italy, AD 190; cited in Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2:276.

consciousness of God” (v. 19). “Consciousness” is syneid∑sis, normally translated “conscience” in the New Testament, but “conscience of God/God’s conscience” makes no sense. But since “conscience” means something like “moral awareness,” “awareness of God” gets us to the gist of the phrase. So slaves, if supported by their deep awareness of God, bear up patiently under undeserved suffering, have God’s charis; think about how broad 1 Peter is making the category of rewarded behavior! Any undeserved suffering, even if it has no direct connection to Christian behavior, is considered favorably and remembered by God. [Patience in Suffering]

Before moving to vv. 21-25, we also ought to consider the effect of 1 Peter’s ordering of his material. He begins a section on proper living by commanding everyone to be subordinate to everyone else (2:13). Just before he addresses house slaves, he names subordination as the principal Christian interpersonal virtue. Still Patience in Suffering speaking to the whole congregation, he A man is not really patient if he is only prepared to tells them to be subordinate as free submit to what he thinks right from the person people and as God’s slaves—they are all whom he chooses. The really patient man does not mind who it is that puts him to the test . . . . Whenever anything of them both of those things (2:16). happens that is hard to bear, however difficult it is and Then, before addressing wives and huswhoever causes it, he accepts it all with thanks as a gift bands or parents and children, and from the hands of God. In his eyes it is a great benefit, without naming slave masters directly, because God will not let anything that is endured for his sake, however small it is, pass by without reward. he focuses on the slaves he knows will Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ 3.19 (trans. Betty I. Knott; London: be listening. As most commentators Collins, 1963) 140. note, this is both a privileging of slaves—a way of honoring a group rarely considered capable of honor—and a way of forcing all the non-slave members to think about what it is like to be a Christian slave. If one is to take seriously “be subordinate to the whole blinking world” and “live as God’s slaves,” what better test case than the real-live slaves sitting among us? We also should remind ourselves that this letter was received by Christians in the late first and early second century as truly by the apostle Peter, and that those who received it almost certainly knew

1 Peter 2

the tradition that Peter had been martyred (see my introduction for a full discussion). While Peter had never been a slave, he ministered among those who suffered dreadfully, and then gave his own life for the faith. That gives weight to his words about bearing up patiently. In fact, the section coming next, in which the readers are told that Christ’s passion should be their model, is only credible coming from a martyr.

127

Crucifixion of Saint Peter

Obedient, Suffering Christ, 2:21-25 “For you were called to this, because Christ also suffered on your behalf, leaving behind an example for you so that you should follow in his footsteps; who ‘committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth’; who when reviled did not Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi da) (1573–1610). Crucifixion of Saint Peter. 1600–1601. Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy. [Credit: The Yorck revile in turn, did not threaten when he Project / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (Yorck Project)] suffered, but handed himself over to the one judging justly; who bore our sins in “When you grow old, you will stretch out your hands.” (John 21:18) his body on the tree, so that by dying to sins we might live to righteousness; by whose wounds you may be healed. For you, like sheep, were wandering, but you have now returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.” We begin with a deceptively simple grammatical question: what is the antecedent of “this” in the first line of 2:21? The “this” in v. 21 appears to repeat the “this” of v. 19: “For this is to your credit, if through a consciousness of God someone endures sorrow, suffering unjustly.” Verse 20 repeats “this is credit with God,” linking God’s favorable attitude with a person’s suffering unjustly after doing only good. Here is the complication: does 1 Peter mean that believers are called to suffer—in the sense that it was Christ’s destiny to suffer—or does the passage mean that if one must suffer, a Christian is called to do so as Jesus did? In other words, is suffering necessarily part of following Christ, or an unfortunate part of the deal for some Christians in some settings? Three considerations make the first option—that suffering is part of a Christian’s calling—more likely to have been what 1 Peter

128

1 Peter 2

intended in this verse. First, there is the little word “also” in the second clause of v. 21. “Christ also suffered on your behalf ” means that the example Jesus set for the readers is not just in how he suffered, but in that he suffered.52 Second, 1 Peter chose to make slaves the first specific example of how all Jesus’ followers are to subordinate themselves to all people. As argued above, slavery included suffering as an unpleasant fact of existence. Thus in this part, where 1 Peter is describing Christ as a model not just for slaves but for all believers, all believers must consider the slave’s life with its inevitable suffering as their paradigm. Third, the two images in the last part of v. 21 stress the close parallels between the experiences of Christ and the readers. In “leaving behind an example for you,” the author chooses a term (hypogrammon, “example”) that literally means the patterns for the letters of the alphabet that children traced over in order to learn their ABC’s.53 With “so that you should follow in his footsteps,” the author calls the readers to walk where he walked and not just how; note that he comes back to this image at the end by calling the readers formerly wandering sheep who have now returned to the shepherd. “You were called to this” begins the passage, but the flow of things quickly turns to focus on Christ rather than on the audience. In order to explain the “example” and the “footsteps” Christ left behind, the author turns to Isaiah 53, the incomparable poem about God’s servant who suffers both innocently and redemptively. First Peter is not the only New Testament author to apply Isaiah’s Suffering Servant to Jesus; the image probably lies behind the Passion Narrative in Mark and certainly lies behind Luke’s version of Mark’s account. In Acts 8:26-40, Philip the evangelist meets an Ethiopian who is reading Isaiah 53, and when the Ethiopian expresses confusion about the identity of the Servant, Philip identifies him as Jesus and uses the Old Testament text as an opportunity for proclaiming the gospel. But nowhere else in the New Testament is Isaiah 53 used so plainly to explain the meaning of Jesus’ suffering and death. This may be this author’s own important contribution to the development of Christian theology, or it may be that 1 Peter put in writing exegetical moves that others were making at the end of the first century.54 In order to see the connections better, look at the comparison below:

1 Peter 2 1 Peter Suffered (epathen) on your behalf who “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth”; who when reviled did not revile in turn handed himself over to the one judging justly he bore our sins

by whose wounds you may be healed you like sheep were wandering

LXX Isaiah 53 he was in pain (odynatai) for us (53:4) he did no lawless act, nor was deceit found in his mouth (53:9) he was dishonored (53:3) he does not open his mouth (53:7) the Lord handed him over (53:6) to justify the just one (53:11) he bore the sins of many (53:12) he carries our sins (53:4) he will bear their sins (53:11) by his wounds we are healed (53:5) All we like sheep were wandering (53:6)

Clearly there is not a point-for-point match between the passages. There is nothing in Isaiah 53 to support the last part of 1 Peter 2:24, “so that by dying to sins we might live to righteousness,” nor the conclusion of the passage, “you have now returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.” On the other side of things, there are many features of Isaiah 53 that 1 Peter does not reference: the Servant is “reckoned among the lawless” (53:12) and has an ignoble and unlovely form (53:2-3), for instance. Commentators also note that the order of the verses in 1 Peter may have been suggested by the order of the proclaimed gospel: Jesus lived a blameless life but was arrested for no good cause; he was silent during his trial and during the physical and verbal abuse he suffered in the process; he was killed “on the tree” so that all who believe in him could live.55 “Christ suffered for you” and “who bore our sins in his body on the tree” are reasonably clear indications that 1 Peter understood Jesus’ death as vicarious, since there would be no reasonable direct connection between the misdeeds of the letter’s recipients and the verdict against Jesus. He suffered for you and bore your sins in his body on the tree; the point is not that you caused him to die, but that his death matters for you. Now, as a result of God’s grace revealed in Christ’s death, you, having died to sin, may live to (or for, or in) righteousness. This much is clear, but the theological

129

130

1 Peter 2

mechanics of how in the mind of this author Christ bore our sins is unexplained. First Peter does not employ sacrificial language here, as other early believers did. Note, most surprisingly, that he does not even explicitly speak in this passage of Christ’s death, although “on the Image Not Available tree” clearly implies it. First Peter due to lack of digital rights. wants to focus more on what Christ Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet suffered—not to suggest that search using the credit below. Christ’s sufferings, apart from his death, were redemptive, but because what slaves in this audience faced as a daily threat was suffering rather than death. Their backs were scarred from beatings, their legs bruised from kicks, their muscles sore from being overworked and underfed. This early 4th-C. terracotta statuette is of an actor playing the role Christ also suffered, said 1 Peter— of an overloaded slave. The figure has a wineskin in his right hand, an amphora (usually filled with wine or oil) in his left, over his for you. Look, this biblical text says shoulder, and a basket on his back. so—“my Servant (my pais, which Terracotta statuette of an actor in a slave mask, heavily loaded, c. 300. British often means “slave-boy”) bore our Museum, London. (Credit: R. Vinson) sins.” Christ suffered just like a slave, even to the point of dying a slave’s death, the “servile death” on the “accursed tree.” [Seneca on Crucifixion] Christ felt the same pain you often feel, and his exemplary conduct under duress shows you how your life of suffering may also have meaning. How? “Live to righteousness,” says 1 Peter, by returning “to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” Shepherds tend flocks of sheep, leading them to good pasture, keeping them out of dangerous places, and defending them from predators when necessary. “Overseer” (episkopos, often translated “bishop” in the New Testament) was a title sometimes given to gods as “guardians of human customs” and to officers of an association who had some degree of oversight within the group.56 Both were completely common titles in ordinary society, but both are also found applied to God in a remarkable passage in Ezekiel 34. After blasting the leaders (“shepherds”) of Israel for their lack of care of and even rapacity toward the “sheep,” the people of Israel, Ezekiel says for Actor in a Slave Mask

1 Peter 2

131

God: “For thus says the Lord, Behold, Seneca on Crucifixion Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away I will seek my sheep, and I will visit in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop (episkepsomai, which could be read ‘I by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be will oversee’) them . . . and I will lead found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, them out from the Gentiles and gather already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and them together from the regions, and I chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long-drawn-out will lead them into their own land . . . agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross. I will seek the lost one, and I will Seneca, Ep. 101. return the wandering one” (LXX Ezek 34:11, 13, 16). God, who shepherds and oversees you in Christ, has provided a pattern for you in Christ’s response to undeserved suffering. He did not match insult with insult, did not make any threats of his own, but “handed himself over to the one judging justly.” The vocabulary of vv. 23-24 would have reminded the audience of the stories of Jesus’ passion from the Gospels (or preaching The Cross as a Prayer of Faith based on those stories): insulted and scourged, When we pray, we display a divine Jesus does not curse his tormentors, but directs power which is in us because we are in Christ, sharing his life. We speak to the Father his speech toward God. [The Cross as a Prayer of Faith] with the voice of his Son because we have been The verb translated “handed over” appears as a taken up to share in their Spirit. The great prayer, theme in the Passion: Judas hands Jesus over to the first prayer, was the cross, when Jesus, for the council, who hands Jesus over to Pilate, who the sake of his fellow men and women, accepted total failure, crucifixion and death and left it all to hands Jesus over to be crucified. How fitting, in the will of his Father. This was the prayer that this section that moves from advice to slaves to was answered in the resurrection of Jesus and advice to all by making slaves paradigmatic for the redemption of the world. the whole congregation, that this image of Herbert McCabe, God, Christ, and Us (London: Continuum, 2003) 7. “handing over” is transformed from a betrayal into an act of faith.

Connections Writing about the “stone” section (2:1-10), Martin Luther finds plenty of proof for his notion that there is no essential distinction between clergy and laity—the “priesthood of believers”: • “This is the true priesthood. As we have heard, it embraces these three things: to offer spiritual sacrifices, to pray for the congregation, and to preach. He who can do this is a priest.”57

132

1 Peter 2

• “It would please me very much if this word ‘priest’ were used as commonly as the term ‘Christian’ is applied to us. For priests, the baptized, and Christians are all the same.”58 • “Thus we see that the first and foremost duty we Christians should perform is to proclaim the wonderful deeds of God.”59 It is undoubtedly anachronistic to claim that 1 Peter supports Luther’s “priesthood of believers,” since in the late first century there was no Christian priesthood as it existed in later times. First Peter does speak of elders who shepherd the flock, and so recognizes Christian leaders who exercise authority; but we have no way of knowing whether these persons were ordained, whether the elders were elected or appointed, or whether “elder” applied to all the more senior members or only to some. Was “elder” an office performed for some limited term, or for life? We have no information. Consequently we cannot imagine, when 1 Peter calls all the Christians a priesthood, that he meant all of them were clergy, or that there was no distinction between clergy and lay, since we do not know that those categories existed for him. But 1 Peter probably does mean that all these readers are priests—if collectively they make up a priesthood, then individually they are acting as priests when they “announce the mighty deeds of the one who called you” and when they offer “spiritual sacrifices.” As noted in the comments on vv. 4-5, “spiritual sacrifices” goes undefined in 1 Peter and could be any sort of prayer or praise to God. Announcing God’s mighty deeds probably includes in-worship behavior—preaching, praying, singing—but probably also includes giving an account of one’s faith to outsiders, as 3:15-16 says readers should be ready to do. All the recipients are empowered and expected to do this by virtue of being set as stones upon the Living Stone, by virtue of being made into a spiritual house, by virtue of being named God’s people. If that’s what we mean by “priesthood of believers,” then once 1 Peter got his head around the anachronistic language, I think he would have agreed. The “alien life” section (2:11-17) calls the readers to what Miroslav Volf has described as “soft difference”: It might be appropriate to call the missionary distance that 1 Peter stresses soft difference. I do not mean a weak difference, for in 1 Peter the difference is anything but weak. It is strong, but it is not hard. Fear for oneself and one’s identity creates hardness. The differ-

1 Peter 2 ence that joins itself with hardness always presents the other with a choice: either submit or be rejected, either “become like me or get away from me.” In the mission to the world, hard difference operates with open or hidden pressures, manipulation, and threats. A decision for a soft difference, on the other hand, presupposes a fearlessness which 1 Peter repeatedly encourages his readers to assume (3:14; 3:6). People who are secure in themselves—more accurately, who are secure in their God—are able to live the soft difference without fear. They have no need either to subordinate or damn others, but can allow others space to be themselves. For people who live the soft difference, mission fundamentally takes the form of witness and invitation. They seek to win others without pressure or manipulation, sometimes even “without a word” (3:1). To be a Christian means to live one’s own identity in the face of others in such a way that one joins inseparably the belief in the truth of one’s own convictions with a respect for the convictions of others. The softness which should characterize the very being of Christians—I am tempted to call it “ontic gentleness”—must not be given up even when we are (from our own perspective) persuaded that others are either wrong or evil. To give up the softness of our difference would be to sacrifice our identity as followers of Jesus Christ.60

Communities that can embody 1 Peter’s principles can “honor the emperor” without needing to bow down to him and can “fear God” without spending a lot of energy calling the emperor a godless pagan bound for hell. In our canon, we have “hard difference” texts like Revelation, warning the good guys that any slip will remove them from the Lamb’s book of life, and excoriating the bad guys; the wise pastor or Bible teacher will probably reserve the latter approach for the most desperate circumstances, since calling your opponent a seven-headed beast from hell or the mother of all whores probably curtails future dialogue. In times where conversation with “Gentiles” is possible without apostasy, 1 Peter’s “soft difference” is the better option. As a comment on the final section directed to slaves, consider this by Frederick Douglass, from the “Appendix” to his autobiography: I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradleplundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed,

133

134

1 Peter 2 I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. . . . We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity.61

First Peter’s author probably could not imagine a time when slavery would not exist—it was so constitutive a part of the economy of the ancient world. When he told slaves that their unjust suffering is well known to God and that, in fact, they imitate Christ when they patiently endure such mistreatment, his words had the potential to redeem something awful and give meaning to something cruelly commonplace. But when he told them that God has called them to this situation, his words helped to make slavery all that much harder to eradicate. By linking the suffering of slaves to the suffering of Christ and thence to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, our text makes (at least potentially) slave-whipping part of God’s overarching plan for the world, foreseen by the prophet and laid down for our edification. So those who interpret this and the other New Testament slave texts must be cautious. As a powerful argument for a nonviolent response to violence, 1 Peter 3:18-25 is terrific. The move it takes of making any undeserved suffering into an imitation of Christ is bold, and can provide many helpful ways to reflect on how our society devalues and mistreats workers at the bottom end of the wage scale. But we must be careful that making metaphorical gold out of real-live straw does not substitute for Christians changing, or trying to change, unfair practices. If we tell the hotel worker that her boss’s tricks to pay her less than a minimum wage or our country’s unwillingness to provide her with affordable healthcare gives her a chance to imitate Christ, we may give her a way to suffer with dignity and grace. But surely we do not think God requires her suffering or approves of our silent acceptance of her condition.

1 Peter 2

Notes 1. Robert Frost, “Mending Wall,” in Robert Frost’s Poems (ed. Louis Untermeyer; New York: Pocket, 1946) 94. 2. Carol Shields, The Stone Diaries (New York: Penguin, 1993) 58–59, 65. 3. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 146–47; John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 400. 4. BADG, 598, “pertaining to being carefully thought through, thoughtful”; when the word is used as a noun instead of an adjective it means “one endowed with reason.” See also the arguments in Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) 133–36, against taking the word to mean “of the word.” 5. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 395. 6. Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: MacMillan, 1952) 393–98; Elliott, 1 Peter, 395; M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 91; but Jobes, 1 Peter, 131, thinks the word became so widely used to urge laying aside vices that it lost any possible connection to baptismal practice. 7. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 144, n. 22. 8. Achtemeier, 1 Peter 144, suggests that it refers to “habitual disparagement of others.” Elliott, 1 Peter, 398, argues for slander, as does Boring, 1 Peter, 91. 9. E.g., Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 19–23, 365–400; discussions of various theories that 1 Peter draws on baptismal liturgies or homilies can be found in Ernest Best, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1971) 20–32, and in Elliott, 1 Peter, 28–35. 10. A collection like this was called a “testimonium,” and many commentators have proposed that one lies behind 1 Peter 2 and Romans 8, where the two Christian authors’ citations are different in some identical ways. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 150–51, argues that since Rom 8:33 does not include a reference to Ps 117, the existence of a “stone testimonium” is “rather questionable,” but Boring, 1 Peter, 96–97, argues that the connection of the three stone texts had already become traditional by the time 1 Peter was written. 11. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 149, 153, translates it as a causal participle: Because you come to him. Elliott, 1 Peter, 406–409, opts for manner: “continuing to come to him”; so also Jobes, 1 Peter, 144. 12. So Boring, 1 Peter, 97. 13. So, emphatically, Elliott, 1 Peter, 414–18. 14. Elliott, 1 Peter, 414–18, argues that there is not even a whiff of “temple” in the passage. Several other commentators treat it as a secondary allusion (so Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 155–56). Others, like Jobes, 1 Peter, 148–49, and Boring, 1 Peter, 98–99, argue that the author intended to compare the readers to a temple. 15. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 159–60; Elliott, 1 Peter, 425; BDAG, 39–40. 16. Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 56–59. 17. Jobes, 1 Peter, 155–56. 18. Jobes, 1 Peter, 158–59; Elliott, 1 Peter, 435, who suggests “elect stock.” 19. Green, 1 Peter, 61, suggests the translation “elect clan.”

135

136

1 Peter 2 20. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 163. 21. Boring, 1 Peter, 98–100; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 152, “the church has now taken over the role of Israel.” 22. Green, 1 Peter, 63; Elliott, 1 Peter, 446–47. 23. Elliott, 1 Peter, 419–21, 437–38, argues for “priestly community” on the grounds that nouns of this sort (those ending in -euma in Greek) denote collective bodies of people rather than abstract concepts. However, when hierateuma is used in 2 Macc 2:17, it is parallel to “kingship” and “sanctification,” and the author appears to mean the restored priesthood under the Maccabees. It is a rare word, and hard to pin down precisely. 24. Elliott, 1 Peter, 436–37, argues that LXX Exod 19:6 should also be translated this way. 25. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 160–61; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 164. 26. Contra Elliott, 1 Peter, 436–37, 449–53, especially where he writes, “The term cannot apply to the believers as individuals, but only to the believing community as community”; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 164–65, and Jobes, 1 Peter, 160–61, agree. 27. BAGD, 276. 28. Polybius, History 6.53–54.3; cited in Valerie M. Warrior, Roman Religion: A Sourcebook (Newburyport MA: Focus, 2002) 32–33. 29. George Eliot, Middlemarch (1872; repr., New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003) 372. 30. Carol Shields, Larry’s Party (Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1977) 221. 31. So Boring, 1 Peter 102–103. 32. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 169–70; Green, 1 Peter, 64–65; Jobes, 1 Peter, 165. Elliott, 1 Peter, 474–76, takes 2:11-12 as a transition between the first and second parts of the letter, but does not agree that 2:11–4:11 is a unit. 33. Birger A. Pearson, “Alexandria,” ABD 1:153, estimates the Jewish population of Alexandria to be “in the hundreds of thousands” in the first century of the Common Era. 34. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 240. 35. Jobes, 1 Peter, 172; Boring, 1 Peter, 114, proposes either present-day conversion or merciful treatment on Judgment Day. 36. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 177–78; Green, 1 Peter, 69–70, who notes that option 2 does not preclude option 1. 37. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 469–71. 38. Green, 1 Peter, 69–70. 39. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 181–82; Boring, 1 Peter, 106–13, is an excellent discussion of the purpose behind this section of 1 Peter. 40. Green’s treatment of the Household section (1 Peter, 70–101) is insightful and helpful. Nevertheless, I disagree that hypotassø is used here to mean “find your place in society” and to urge the readers not to withdraw from society. Slaves and wives could not choose between “submit” and “withdraw,” and could not, for the most part, select their place in society. 41. Elliott, 1 Peter, 487. 42. Jobes, 1 Peter, 176–77; BAGD, 573; Green, 1 Peter, 75.

1 Peter 2 43. Jobes, 1 Peter, 185; Elliott, 1 Peter, 513. 44. Cato, On Agriculture, 5, in Thomas Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981) 148–49. 45. By form oiketai is nominative, but by v. 20 it becomes clear that the author is speaking directly to the slaves; thus, I agree with those who translate oiketai as a vocative. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 184–85; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 189. 46. So the NRSV, “Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference.” 47. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 194–95; Elliott, 1 Peter, 517; Boring, 1 Peter, 119. 48. Elliott, 1 Peter, 516; Boring, 1 Peter, 117; Perkins, First and Second Peter, 52. 49. Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.16 (cited in Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery, 173). 50. Galen, The Diseases of the Mind, 4, in Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery, 180. 51. So BDAG, 1079; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 196; Green, 1 Peter, 80; Boring, 1 Peter, 119, however, objects that this understanding “is at the farthest pole from the author’s thought.” 52. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 198–99. 53. BAGD, 1036; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 199; Boring, 1 Peter, 121. 54. Many have expressed the opinion that 1 Peter here is reproducing earlier Christian reflections on Isaiah 52–53, perhaps begun by Jesus’ own teaching and extending through the period of oral tradition; see Elliott, 1 Peter, 543–47; Selwyn, First Epistle, 90–101; David Horrell, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peterborough UK: Epworth, 1998) 40–41; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 20–710. Others think it more likely that the author of 1 Peter is doing his own reflection on Jesus’ death, using Isaiah 53 to explain things. 55. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 193; Jobes, 1 Peter, 194. 56. BAGD, 379; Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) list examples where it means an inspector sent from Athens to subject states, or civic officials. It is sometimes also a title for officers in a private guild or association; see Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 182. 57. Luther, Catholic Epistles, 55. 58. Ibid., 63. 59. Ibid., 65. 60. Miroslav Volf, “Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation between Church and Culture in 1 Peter,” Ex Auditu 10 (1994): 17–19. 61. Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave; cited in Roger Lundin and Mark A. Noll, Voices from the Heart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 192–93.

137

Conduct at Home and in the World 1 Peter 3

COMMENTARY How to Be a Wife or Husband, 3:1-7

“Some have felt that these blundering lives [of women] are due to the inconvenient indefiniteness with which the Supreme Power has fashioned the natures of women . . . .”1 Probably George Eliot would count 1 Peter in that “some,” since it calls women “the weaker vessel” and urges them to submissive silence. We will have to wrestle with this text, first to be certain that we understand it on its own terms, and then to find approaches to it that do not perpetuate religiously sanctioned oppression of women. This passage is the third example the author gives of what it means to “be subordinate to everyone” (2:13). The first section (2:13-17) addressed everyone, suggesting how to be subordinate to persons in power in light of one’s Christian faith: “respect everyone, love the brotherhood, fear/reverence God, respect the emperor” was the summation. The second section (2:18-25) addressed household slaves, advising them on how to relate to masters, especially masters who mistreated them. By the end of the slave section, the audience widened to include every believer, who had already been addressed both as free and as slaves (2:16). This third section, about wives and husbands, cannot be as broadly applicable. First Peter is comfortable telling his audience that they are all God’s slaves, but he never calls them God’s wives (see 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 21:2; Eph 5:25-33). There was no masters’ section to go along with the advice to slaves, but 1 Peter includes a brief statement to husbands following the advice to wives. In what follows, I will try to point out what is distinctive about 1 Peter’s treatment of this topic by comparison or contrast with what others in early Christianity say. (There are

140

1 Peter 3

passages directly addressing wives and husbands in 1 Cor 7, Eph 5:22-33, and Col 3:18-19; there are other passages about women’s behavior in 1 Cor 11 and 14; 1 Tim 2:8-15; Titus 2:1-5; 1 Clem. 1:3, 21:6-7; Pol. Phil. 4:2-3.) When we think about 1 Peter’s advice to wives and husbands, it will also be helpful to compare this Christian’s thinking with nonChristian texts on the same topic from the same era. Here we will have to do some careful weighing. For instance, Plutarch, in his famous essay Advice to Bride and Groom, states, “A wife ought not to make friends of her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him”(Conj. praec. 19). Just because Plutarch advised it does not make it common practice, and the opinion of one elite first-century male may not indicate what others thought or what their wives did; Juvenal’s Satires complain about wives who are entirely too independent and outspoken. Expectations of proper wifely behavior also differed according to race, nationality, class, and century, and 1 Peter, as we recall from the introduction, was written to a mixed audience. The moral is that we shall have to be cautious about what we say was typical. Wives’ Wordless Evangelism, 3:1-2 “Likewise wives [should be subordinate to everyone] by being subordinate to their own husbands, so that even if some [husbands] are disobedient to the word, they may be gained without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they observe their holy lifestyle [conducted] with reverence.” Most non-Christian and non-Jewish Greek and Roman households worshiped the traditional gods and goddesses. The Olympian deities had shrines and temples all over the region 1 Peter addressed, particularly in the cities. A normal level of piety would include attendance at festivals that honored the gods as well as the occasional sacrificial offering accompanying a request for something or as thanksgiving for a blessing. Temples had priests who could sacrifice the animal for you or at least assist you with the task, but a head of household might perform a thanksgiving sacrifice himself on his own grounds or in a grove of trees sacred to some deity. [A Head of Household Offers Sacrifice] In addition, typical Greek and Roman piety included making regular, even daily, offerings to the protective deities who guarded the household. [The Testimony of a Lar] The offering did not have to be substantial; regularity counted for more than quantity, because the point was

1 Peter 3 A Head of Household Offers Sacrifice [A householder, rejoicing that his daughter has been restored to him, yells to his wife]: Get things ready for a thank-offering, will you, to the household gods [the Lares], as soon as I come back. We ought to celebrate the increase in our family. We’ve got some lambs and pigs for the purpose. (Plautus, The Rope, 1205–1209) Whether you are a god or goddess for whom this grove is sacred, since it is your right to receive the sacrifice of

141

a pig for clearing this grove—whether I or someone at my bidding does it, may it be rightly done. Therefore, because of this offering I pray that you be willing and propitious to me, my house, family and children. (Cato, Agr. 139) The Rope and Other Plays, trans. E. F. Watlington (New York: Penguin, 1964) 144. Cato trans. C. Robert Phillips III, in Mark Kiley, ed., Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (London: Routledge, 1997) 130.

to show one’s fides et pietas (faithful devotion), gratia (willingness to acknowledge indebtedness), and constantia (dependability). Households who could afford them had wooden shrines with tiny statues of their favored gods, of the protective deities of their household, and of their more famous ancestors, whose spirits were also to be honored regularly. In some households, these shrines and deities were painted onto the wall of a room in the more private part of the house. While we cannot know how many people actually per- The Testimony of a Lar That no one may wonder who I am, I shall inform you formed these daily rituals—how many briefly. I am the Household God (Lar) of that family people say they pray daily when it is from whose house you saw me come. For many years now I actually more like weekly or have possessed this dwelling and preserved it for the sire and monthly?—the presence of the arti- grandsire of its present occupant. Now this man’s grandsire as a suppliant entrusted to me, in utter secrecy, a hoard of gold; facts in excavated houses and literary he buried it in the center of the hearth, entreating me to guard references to them make it unlikely it for him. When he died he could not bear—so covetous was that many people simply ignored their he—to reveal its existence to his own son, and he chose to leave him penniless rather than apprise him of this treasure. perceived duties to the gods. Some land, a little only, he did leave him, whereon to toil and Instead of weekends, the Roman cal- moil for a miserable livelihood. endar had several regularly scheduled After the death of him who had committed the gold to my keeping, I began to observe whether the son would hold me in religious festivals scattered throughout greater honor than his father had. As a matter of fact, his the year, with public ceremonies and neglect grew and grew apace, and he showed me less honor. I sacrifices, theatre performances, ban- did the same by him: so he also died. He left a son who occuquets, parades, and games. In addition pies this house at present, a man of the same mould as his to these public events there were sire and grandsire. He has one daughter. She prays to me conprivate ones sponsored by trade guilds stantly, with daily gifts of incense or wine or something; she gives me garlands. Out of regard for her I caused Euclio to disand burial societies. By the late first cover the treasure here in order that he might the more easily century, celebrations marking the find her a husband, if he wished . . . . I shall make the old gentleman who lives next door here ask anniversary of the current emperor’s for her hand today. My reason for so doing is that the man accession and/or birthday were also who wronged her may marry her the more easily. common. Plautus, Aul. 1-38.

142

1 Peter 3

Shrine of Lares

The Lararium (shrine of household gods). Roman wallpainting. Casa dei Vettii, Pompeii, Italy. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-2.5)

The figure in the center is the Genius—the governing spirit of the householder’s paternal ancestors—with his toga pulled up over his head and ready to sacrifice. The two figures on either side are Lares, household gods. They hold drinking horns, symbolizing happiness and good fortune. The snake is thought to be a symbol of fertility, and it is moving to eat the sacrifice provided on a small altar. Sites like this in each household— probably much simpler in poorer homes—would be where the members of the family offered regular sacrifices to their protective gods.

The point is this: normal life in these provinces at the end of the first century included lots of non-Christian, non-Jewish religious practices, some done in private, some in public. Greeks and Romans knew that Jews who were serious about their faith abstained from the worship of the gods and thus were absent from these events. But it would have been hard for a non-Jewish Christian to skip out on all these things unnoticed. Plutarch, the first-century ethical essayist, gives the following advice about women’s religious practice:

A wife ought not to make friends of her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Wherefore it is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favor.2

Plutarch may well be reacting to the popularity of mystery religions. [The Mysteries] Some of these were especially appealing to women, including some married women who joined them without their husbands. Josephus tells of a well-born Roman matron, a devotee of Isis, who was raped in the Temple of Isis by a man pretending to be the god Anubis.3 (In her case, her husband was not a member of the cult but had no objection to his wife’s involvement.) Because of scandals like these, political leaders in the empire sometimes felt they had to crack down on these groups—Josephus says that Tiberius crucified the priests of Isis, destroyed the temple, and threw the cult statue into the Tiber—but because of its immense

1 Peter 3 The Mysteries “Mystery Religions” is a term for religions that became important to Greek and Roman societies beginning in the period after Alexander. Many of them involved the worship of “foreign” deities—Isis was originally Egyptian, Magna Mater (the Great Mother) was Anatolian/Syrian. Whereas every person was expected to honor the deities associated with his or her family of origin, place of birth, and place of residence, the mysteries were a matter of choice: persons joined a mystery cult and were initiated into it. A person’s obligation to participate in family, ethnic, and civic religious acts was based on the belief that the deities honored supported the group and could withdraw support if not properly recognized—an Athenian who failed to honor Athena endangered the city. Participation in the mysteries, however, promised personal benefits to the worshiper: immortality, greater blessings in one’s

143

present life, or a greater chance to experience the power of the divine through religious rituals. Mysteries had their public face—temples, parades, public festivals, and celebrations—as well as their hidden, secret sides. Initiates were not supposed to reveal what they saw or heard in the innermost parts of the temple. Apuleius includes a conversion to the Isis cult at the end of his comic and satirical The Golden Ass, managing to titillate without ever giving concrete details of what went on: the priest “gave me certain orders too holy to be spoken above a whisper”; “I entered the presence of the gods of the underworld and the gods of the upper-world, stood near and worshipped them.” The mysteries’ secrecy, like their antiquity and foreign origins, were part of their attraction for people in the empire, but the same factors also often kept persons in authority suspicious of them.

popularity, the Isis cult was given official sanction by Caligula and the cult of the Magna Mater (another female fertility deity) by Claudius. It was thus possible, whatever Plutarch thought, for a married woman to be a practicing member of a cult to which her husband did not belong, without her creating any sort of scandal or affecting the public career of her husband. But—and this is the telling point—in the late first century and early second century, Christians had no temples or priests or cult statues. Their worship took place in houses, in apartment complexes, in rented buildings, and in comfortable outdoor spots. Christians had no public parades and pageants like the Isis cult, described so lavishly in Apuleius’s The Golden Ass. [A Parade Honoring Isis]

A Christian woman whose husband was not a believer, and who committed herself to worship only as a Christian, would have to explain not only why she no longer participated in her own ancestral religious rites, but also why she now joined in rites honoring a crucified man that were conducted in someone else’s home. Tertullian, writing around AD 207, comments on the obstacles a Christian woman faced if she was married to an unbeliever: But let her see to (the question) how she discharges her duties to her husband. To the Lord, at all events, she is unable to give satisfaction according to the requirements of discipline; having at her side a servant of the devil, his lord’s agent for hindering the pursuits and duties of believers: so that if a station is to be kept, the husband at

144

1 Peter 3

daybreak makes an appointment with his wife to meet him at the baths; if there are fasts to be observed, the husband that same day holds a convivial banquet; if a charitable expedition has to be made, never is family business more urgent. For who would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren, to go round from street to street to other men’s, and indeed to all the poorer, cottages? Who will willingly bear her being taken from his side by nocturnal convocations, if need so be? Who, finally, will without anxiety endure her absence all the night long at the paschal solemnities? Who will, without some suspicion of his own, dismiss her to attend that Lord’s Supper which they defame? Who will suffer her to creep into prison to kiss a martyr’s bonds? nay, truly, to meet any one of the brethren to exchange the kiss? to offer water for the saints’ feet? to snatch (somewhat for them) from her food, from her cup? to yearn (after them)? to have (them) in her mind? If a pilgrim brother arrive, what hospitality for him in an A Parade Honoring Isis alien home? If bounty is to be distributed to Presently the vanguard of the grand procession came in view. It was composed of a any, the granaries, the storehouses, are forenumber of people in fancy dress of their own closed . . . . “Cast not,” saith He, “your pearls choosing; a man wearing a soldier’s sword belt; to swine, lest they trample them to pieces, and another dressed as a huntsman, a thick cloak caught turn round and overturn you also. “Your up to his waist with hunting knife and javelin; another pearls” are the distinctive marks of even your who wore gilt sandals, a wig, a silk dress and expendaily conversation. The more care you take to sive jewelry and pretended to be a woman. Then a man with heavy boots, shield, helmet, and sword, conceal them, the more liable to suspicion you looking as though he had walked straight out of the will make them, and the more exposed to the gladiators’ school . . . . At the head walked women grasp of Gentile curiosity. Shall you escape crowned with flowers, who pulled more flowers out of notice when you sign your bed, (or) your body; the folds of their beautiful white dresses and scatwhen you blow away some impurity; when tered them along the road . . . next came women with even by night you rise to pray? Will you not be polished mirrors tied to the backs of their heads, which gave all who followed them the illusion of thought to be engaged in some work of magic? coming to meet the Goddess, rather than marching Will not your husband know what it is which before her. Next, a party of women with ivory combs you secretly taste before (taking) any food? and in their hands who made a pantomime of combing the if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe Goddess’s royal hair . . . . Next came musicians with it to be that (bread) which it is said to be? And pipes and flutes, followed by a party of carefully will every (husband), ignorant of the reason of chosen choir-boys singing a hymn in which an inspired poet had explained the origin of the procession. The these things, simply endure them, without temple pipers of the great god Serapis were there, murmuring, without suspicion whether it be too, playing their religious anthem on pipes . . . . Then bread or poison? followed a great crowd of the Goddess’s initiates, men and women of all classes and every age, their pure white linen cloths shining brightly. The women wore their hair tied up in glossy coils under gauze head-dresses . . . . Apuleius, The Golden Ass (trans. Robert Graves; New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951) 268–69.

First Peter’s first statement echoes what he said to slaves: “be subordinate to your own husbands.” Other early Christian texts on the subject begin in the same place:

1 Peter 3

145

• Colossians 3:18: Wives, be subordinate to your husbands as is proper in the Lord. • Ephesians 5:21-24: Be subordinate to each other in reverence for Christ, wives to their own husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife just as Christ is also head of the church, himself the savior of the body; but as the church subordinates itself to Christ, so also wives [subordinate themselves] to their husbands in everything. • 1 Clement 1:3: You [the Corinthians] taught [your wives] to manage their households respectfully, living under the rule of submission, practicing discretion in every way. Not every early Christian text for wives begins with obedience or submission, but they usually come around to it eventually: • 1 Clement 21:6-7: We should set our wives along the straight path that leads to good. Let them display a character of purity, worthy of love; let them exhibit the innocent will of their meekness; let them manifest the gentleness of their tongues through how they speak; let them show their love not with partiality, but equally to all who stand in reverential awe of God in a holy way. • Polycarp, Philippians 4.2: Then we should also teach our wives [to walk] in the faith given them in love and holiness, being affectionate towards their own husbands in all truth Wifely Submission and loving everyone equally with all self-control, Caleb Garth . . . told his wife that Mrs. and to raise their children in the upbringing of Casaubon had a head for business most uncommon in a woman. . . . “Most uncommon!” the fear of God. Subordination implies obedience; here wives to husbands, as earlier slaves to masters. But notice that 1 Peter does not write “in all things” as he does in 2:18 and as do Ephesians 5 and 1 Clement 1. What must a Christian wife do if her non-Christian husband commands her to give up her faith? First Peter does not tackle the issue, but perhaps omitting “in all things” gives the woman a chance to think about it. [Wifely

repeated Caleb. “She said a thing I often used to think myself when I was a lad: ‘Mr. Garth, I should like to feel, if I lived to be old, that I had improved a great piece of land and built a great many good cottages, because the work is of a healthy kind while it is being done, and after it is done, men are the better for it.’ Those were the very words: she sees into things in that way.” “But womanly, I hope,” said Mrs. Garth, half suspecting that Mrs. Casaubon might not hold the true principle of subordination. George Eliot, Middlemarch (1872; repr., New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003) 523.

Submission]

“So that even if some [husbands] are disobedient to the word, they may be gained” implies (a) that 1 Peter means to apply wifely subordination to all husbands Christian and non-Christian, (b)

146

1 Peter 3

that 1 Peter considers that wifely insubordination to a nonChristian husband might be a barrier to his conversion, and (c) that the conversion of the husband might be a sufficiently motivating interest for the Christian wife to continue being subordinate. Slaves had no choice about obedience if they wanted to avoid beatings; in fact, as 1 Peter observes in 2:18-20, sometimes they were beaten even when they did nothing wrong. Wives, however, were not considered property in the late first century; they could not be killed for disobedience, although they could be divorced or abandoned. It is possible, then, that “be subordinate to your own husbands, even if . . .” is meant to forestall any discussion of Christian wives divorcing or leaving their husbands so that they could be free of involvement with non-Christian religious practices. Paul counsels Christians married to non-Christians to stay married, despite the religious tensions, for the same reason 1 Peter gives: “Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife” (1 Cor 7:16). The evangelistically motivated subordination, in 1 Peter’s mind, will be done “without a word,” as the non-Christian husband observes his Christian wife’s exemplary conduct—a “holy lifestyle” conducted with reverence. “Without a word” is partly a rhetorical flourish, a riff on “disobedient to the word,” meaning husbands who have not accepted the gospel. But other writers also speak of wifely silence in more sweeping ways: • 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35: As in all the churches of the saints, women (or wives) must be silent in the churches. For it is not permissible for them to talk, but they must be subordinate, just as the Law also says. So if there is anything they wish to learn, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman (or a wife) to talk in church. • 1 Timothy 2:11-12: Let a woman (or a wife) learn in silence, in all subordination; it is not permissible for a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. • Aristotle, Politics 1260a: All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says of women, “Silence is a woman’s glory,” but this is not equally the glory of man. • Plutarch, Advice to Bride and Groom 32: Pheidias, in representing the Elean Aphrodite with her foot upon a tortoise, meant women to take it as a symbol of home-keeping and silence. A

1 Peter 3

147

woman should talk either to, or through the medium of, her husband; nor should she resent it if, like a player on the clarinet, she finds a more impressive utterance through another tongue than through her own. • Plautus, The Rope 1114: “A woman’s silence is Silence Lydgate by this time had had always worth more than her speech.” [Silence] many interviews with [Madame Laure], and found her more and more adorable. She talked little, but that was an additional charm.

It is possible that 1 Peter’s advice is meant simply to relieve the wife from feeling compelled to proclaim the gospel to her unconverted husband; her deeds George Eliot, Middlemarch (1872; repr., New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003) 144. and character are enough. But in view of the texts cited above, he may be advising silence more as a characteristic behavior. Late first- and early second-century readers, as far as we can tell, accepted this letter as truly from Jesus’ number-one apostle. It is my opinion that someone else wrote it, but we should consider the impact of a letter from a married apostle/martyr giving advice on wifely behavior. The New Testament tells us nothing about Mrs. Cephas, except that she seems to have accompanied Peter in his itinerant ministry (1 Cor 9:5) and that she and Peter lived in the same house with her mother (Mark 1:29-31). Exhortations to wifely silence and submission from Paul and Paul’s imitators carried plenty of authority in the ancient church, but Paul is clear about being contentedly single. The same opinions in Peter’s voice gain the added authority of coming from a married man—except that, of course, he did not know what it was like to be a woman married to a nonbeliever. Wives’ Unpretentious Presentation, 3:3-6 “Let their [person] not be the external, with braided hair and wearing gold jewelry or putting on adorning clothes, but the hidden person of the heart, with imperishable [traits] of meekness and quietness of spirit, which is wealth in God’s sight. For thus once also saintly women who hoped in God decorated themselves by being subject to their husbands, as Sarah used to obey Abraham, calling him lord; whose children you became when you do good and fear nothing terrible.” Verses 3-4—do not be concerned with exterior finery but with virtue—was standard advice to or about women in the first century. We can find similar statements from Greek, Roman, and Jewish writers of the period. [Virtue Matters more than Adornment] Other

148

1 Peter 3

Virtue Matters more than Adornment The Laudatio Turiae is a funerary inscription made by a husband for his deceased wife. It is unusually long for a grave marker, and seems to have been the entire text of the eulogy that the husband read aloud at her memorial service. It comes from Rome and dates from the first century bc. Below are some selections that emphasize the woman’s virtues, especially her willingness to use her personal wealth to defend her husband when he had to go into exile for political reasons. Left-hand column, (30) Why should I mention your domestic virtues: your loyalty, obedience, affability, reasonableness, industry in working wool, religion without superstition, sobriety of attire, modesty of appearance? Why dwell on your love for your relatives, your devotion to your family? You have shown the same attention to my mother as you did to your own parents, and have taken

care to secure an equally peaceful life for her as you did for your own people, and you have innumerable other merits in common with all married women who care for their good name. It is your very own virtues that I am asserting, and very few women have encountered comparable circumstances to make them endure such sufferings and perform such deeds. Providentially Fate has made such hard tests rare for women. Right-hand column, (2a) You provided abundantly for my needs during my flight and gave me the means for a dignified manner of living, when you took all the gold and jewelry from your own body and sent it to me and over and over again enriched me in my absence with servants, money and provisions, showing great ingenuity in deceiving the guards posted by our adversaries. Hermann Desau, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Eng. trans. E. Wistrand; Berlin: Berolini, 1906) 8393.

Christian writers also warn against women’s ostentation. First Timothy 2:9-11 is perhaps the most familiar example: “Likewise [I desire] that the women should dress themselves with modesty and self-control in a becoming manner, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but through good works, as is fitting for a woman professing godliness.” Later writers pick this up and expand it—Tertullian wrote a whole treatise On the Apparel of Women. [Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women] Because “do not worry about your hair, your clothes, and your jewels” is such a stereotypical thing for a male writer of the period to say regarding women, Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women we cannot be sure whether We use the word “dress” when we refer to what they call womanly grace, whereas make-up is more fittingly called 1 Peter imagined that any womanly disgrace. Articles of dress are considered gold and silver and women in his audience would jewels and clothes, whereas make-up consists in the care of hair and have been wealthy enough to of the skin and of those parts of the body which attract the eye. On have needed the advice.4 [Greek, one we level the accusation of ambition; on the other, that of prostitution. (1.4.2) Now, gold and silver, the principal materials of worldly dress, are necessarily the same as that from which they come, namely, earth. To be sure, they are earth of a nobler sort. For, wet with the tears of those condemned to penal labor in the deadly foundries of the accursed mines, those “precious” metals leave the name of earth in the fire behind them and, as fugitives from the mines, they change from objects of torment into articles of ornament, from instruments of punishment into tools of allurement, from symbols of ignominy into signs of honor. (1.5.1)

Roman, and Jewish Writers on Women’s Extravagance] But 1 Peter’s late first-

century audiences would have heard this advice as aligned with the official values of the Empire, as opposed to the actual conduct of the “Gentiles” that 1 Peter condemns (4:3-4). From time to time the Senate passed “sump-

1 Peter 3

149

tuary laws” prohibiting displays of wealth. After the disastrous defeat of a whole Roman army at Cannae in 216 BC, the Senate passed the Oppian laws that prohibited women from owning more Greek, Roman, and Jewish Writers on Women’s Extravagance 22. When the Roman was admonished by his friends for having divorced a wife who was chaste, rich, and beautiful, he stretched out his shoe and remarked: “Yes, and this looks fine and new, but no one knows where it chafes me.” The wife must not rely upon her dowry, her birth, or her beauty. The matters in which she touches her husband most closely are conversation, character, and companionship. Instead of making these harsh and vexatious day after day, she must render them compatible, soothing, and grateful. 25. To young men who are fond of looking at themselves in the mirror Socrates recommended that the ugly should correct their defects by virtue, while the handsome should avoid spoiling their beauty by vice. It is a good thing for the married woman also, while she is holding the mirror, to talk to herself, and, if she is plain, to ask, “And what if I show myself indiscreet?” if beautiful, “And what if I show myself discreet as well!” The plain woman may pride herself on being loved for her character, and the handsome woman on being loved more for her character then her beauty. 26. When the Sicilian despot sent Lysander’s daughters a set of costly mantles and chains, he refused to accept them. “These bits of ornaments,” said he, “will rather take from my daughters’ beauty than set it off.” Lysander, however, was anticipated by Sophocles in the lines: “Nay, ‘twould not seem, poor fool, to beautify,/ But to unbeautify, and prove thee wanton.” As Crates used to say, “Adornment is that which adorns,” and that which adorns is that which adds to a woman’s seemliness. This is not done by gold or jewels or scarlet, but by what-ever invests her with the badges of dignity, decorum, and modesty. (Plutarch, Advice to Bride and Groom, 1st century AD) The temperate, freeborn woman must live with her legal husband adorned with modesty, clad in neat, simple, white dress without extravagance or excess. She must avoid clothing that is either entirely purple or is streaked with purple and gold, for that kind of dress is worn by hetarerae [courtesans] when they stalk the masses of men. But the adornment of a woman who wishes to please only one man, her own husband, is her

character and not her clothing . . . . You should have a blush on your cheeks as a sign of modesty instead of rouge, and should wear nobility, decorum and temperance instead of gold and emeralds. For the woman who strives for virtue must not have her heart set on expensive clothing but on the management of her household. (Pseudo-Melissa, “Letter to Klearata” [a Pythagorean ethical tract dating from the 1st century BC or 1st century AD); cited in Malherbe, 83) But above all a woman must be chaste and self-controlled; she must, I mean, be pure in respect of unlawful love, exercise restraint in other pleasures, not be a slave to desire, not be contentious, not lavish in expense, nor extravagant in dress. (Musonius Rufus, from “Fragment 3” [a Stoic of the 1st century AD); cited in Malherbe, 133) A silent wife is a gift from the Lord, and nothing is so precious as her self-discipline. A modest wife adds charm to charm, and no scales can weigh the value of her chastity. Like the sun rising in the heights of the Lord, so is the beauty of a good wife in her well-ordered home. (Sirach 26:14-16) [writing of a group of women trying to seduce the Israelites]: They adorned themselves with costly garments, and necklaces, and all those other appendages with which women are accustomed to set themselves off, and they devoted all their attention to enhancing their natural beauty . . . . (Philo, On the Virtues 39) [explaining how women helped make the tabernacle]: they also contribute their own ornaments without hesitation, “seals, and earrings, and finger-rings, and armlets, and tablets, and all jewels of gold”—everything, in short, of which gold was the material, gladly giving up the ornaments of their person in exchange for piety. (Philo, On the Migration of Abraham 97) Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).

150

1 Peter 3

than half an ounce of gold (this would have been mostly in jewelry) or wearing a multicolored garment. After the defeat of the Carthaginians, the laws were repealed, and although there was a series of laws regulating how much could be spent on a fancy dinner, the limits kept being raised because the Livia Praying wealthy continuously ignored them. Emperor Tiberius (emperor when Jesus was crucified) wrote a letter to the Senate deploring the growing extravagance but despairing of ever containing it: “What am I to start with prohibiting and cutting down to the standards of old? The vast size of country manors? The Image Not Available number of slaves of every nationality? The due to lack of digital rights. weight of silver and gold? . . . The indiscrimiPlease view the published nate dress of men and women, or that luxury commentary or perform an Internet search using the peculiar to the women alone which, for the credit below. sake of jewels, diverts our riches to foreign and even hostile peoples?”5 Rather than external things—hair, clothes, jewels—the woman is to focus on “the hidden person of the heart.” No other New Testament writer used this phrase, although Paul wrote of the outer and inner person (2 Cor 4:16). Orant Livia. Imperial Roman, early 1st C. Marble bust. Galleria dei Ancient writers imagined that people thought Busti, Museo Pio Clementino, Vatican Museums, Vatican State. (Credit: Vanni/Art Resource, NY) and made decisions in their hearts, so the author is directing the women in his audience This 1st-century statue of Augustus’s wife Livia toward their faculties of judgment and comshows her praying. She is wearing traditional and mitment. They should try to be noticed for modest dress, as befits the First Lady of the Empire; her hair is curled but not braided. Whatever their “imperishable [traits] of meekness and the Empress may have worn in real life, this quietness of spirit.” “Quiet” and “meek” are sculptor wanted to depict her as pious and modest, ideal qualities for a wife [Meekness and Quiet for the ideal for Roman women to imitate. Women], but they are also commended for Christians generally (meekness: Gal 5:23; Jas 1:21; quietness: 1 Tim 2:2; 2 Thess 3:12; Did. 3.7-8, “be meek, since the meek will inherit the earth. Be patient and merciful and innocent and quiet and good . . .”; 1 Clem. 21:7, “let [our wives] exhibit the innocent will of their meekness; let them manifest the gentleness of their tongues through how they speak”). These qualities are valuable with God, says 1 Peter, implying that they are worth much more than gold. By commending “meek and quiet” as a contrast to

1 Peter 3

151

wearing gold and stylish Meekness and Quiet for Women People never dress in bright clothes when approaching an eleclothes, 1 Peter probably phant, nor in red when approaching a bull, since the animals in thought that the ideal wife is question are particularly infuriated by those colors. Of tigers it is said subdued and not apt to call that, if you beat drums all around them, they go mad and tear themattention to herself. As we will selves to pieces. Surely, then, inasmuch as some men cannot bear to see, he gives the same advice to see scarlet or purple clothes, and some are irritated at cymbals and everyone (3:15-16), so perhaps tambourines, it is not asking too much for women to leave such things alone, and not harass or exasperate their husbands, but practice quiwe would more accurately say etude and consideration in their society. (Plutarch, Advice to Bride and that the ideal believer is unpre- Groom 45) tentious—willing to answer questions, but not otherwise The woman who strives for virtue . . . must please her husband by doing what he wishes, for a husband’s wishes ought to be an unwritten law to making lots of noise. an orderly wife, and she should live by them. She should be of the In vv. 5-6, the author offers opinion that, together with herself, she brought to him her orderly examples of conduct for the behavior as the most beautiful and greatest dowry. (Pseudo-Melissa, wives, just as he set forward “Letter to Klearata,” cited in Malherbe, 83) Jesus as the example for the Do not bring as a wife into your home a bad and wealthy woman, for slaves. The anonymous “saintly you will be a slave of (your) wife because of the ruinous dowry. We seek women” give way quickly to the noble horses and strong-necked bulls, plowers of the earth, and the very specific example of Sarah, who best of dogs; yet we fools do not strive to marry a good (wife), nor does a woman reject a bad man when he is rich. (Pseudo-Phocylides 199-204 is said to have “obeyed [1st century BC to 1st century AD, Jewish, written in Greek; in Abraham, calling him ‘lord.’” Charlesworth, ed., 2:581) As most commentators note, Sarah is a curious person Doubtlessly marriage does turn out to be intolerable for many men. For they do not take wives for the sake of procreating children and sharing to cite, since Abe “obeyed” their lives with their wives, but some marry because of the size of her her (LXX Gen 16:2; see also dowry, others because of her beautiful figure, and others for other such 21:11-12) rather than she him, reasons. By using these bad advisers they seek no knowledge of the and since the only time she calls bride’s disposition and manner but celebrate the wedding to their own destruction; and with their doors decked out with garlands they introhim “lord” is under her breath, duce into their homes a tyrant instead of a wife, and do it however when she laughs at the idea that incapable they are of standing up to her and competing with her for first at his age he could father a place. (Hierocles, On Duties [Stoic, 2d century AD; in Malherbe, child: “So Sarah laughed, saying 102–103) in herself, ‘It has not yet hapAbraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: pened to me until now, and my Westminster, 1986). lord is an old man’” (LXX Gen James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City NY: 18:12). Some commentators Doubleday, 1983). think 1 Peter must be drawing on Jewish interpretive traditions, such as the one in the firstcentury AD Testament of Abraham, where Sarah is perfectly submissive, always addressing her husband as “my lord Abraham.”6 Others note that Sarah, like Abraham, was a “resident alien and

152

1 Peter 3

sojourner” and as such makes a good prototype for the Christian women addressed by this letter.7 That is true; however, Sarah’s husband is the prototypical man of faith, and so Sarah is still an odd choice for women married to nonbelievers. The real problem here is with the choice of material available to 1 Peter. The Septuagint is not loaded with exemplary tales of wifely obedience; think of Rebecca, tricking poor old blind Isaac, or Zipporah, pulling a knife on Moses, or Abigail, fluttering her eyelashes at David while apologizing for her husband’s boorishness. Nor are there exemplars of the long-suffering believing wife whose silent goodness converts her recalcitrant pagan husband. The LXX version of Esther comes closest, but the king does not convert, and Ester says in her prayer, “I abhor the couch (or marital bed) of the uncircumcised” (LXX Esth 4:17). For the slaves, the example of Jesus worked perfectly; but 1 Peter cannot hold Jesus up as a model for wifely submission to an unbeliever. So Sarah is not a perfect fit, but is there a better in Scripture? [Wifely Courage] At the end of v. 6, the author makes a remarkable move that he has not made to this point in the letter. Even though he has been calling outsiders “Gentiles” and the recipients “God’s own people,” until 3:6 he has not identified any of the audience as kin to anyone in Israel—they are God’s children and God is their father, but they are not said to be part of Israel. Here, however, these Christian women, some of them married to unbelievers, are Sarah’s children. Since the author shows no interest anywhere in the letter in addressing how the common markers of being Jewish—keeping Sabbath, eating kosher, circumcision, and the like—connect with his audience, we can presume he does not literally mean that these Gentile women have become Jewish, and can also presume that he does not mean that they became Sarah’s offspring at some point or another (e.g., their conversion or their baptism). They are Sarah’s “daughters” because they resemble her in some way, and that is explained in the final part of the verse. The verb “you have become” is completed by two infinitives, agathopoiousai (lit., to do good) and phoboumenai (lit., to fear). One can translate Greek infinitives like this in several ways: • as conditions (“you became . . . if you do good and do not fear”);8 • to show purpose or result (“you became . . . so that/with the result that you do good and do not fear”);9

1 Peter 3

153

Wifely Courage The 1st century BC funerary inscription called Laudatio Turiae offers a husband’s praise for his deceased wife (see also [Virtue Matters more than Adornment]). At one point in their marriage, the husband had to flee for his life, and his wife interceded for him, receiving some injuries and insults as a result. This husband’s full and heart-felt praise shows that not every husband in antiquity preferred his wife to be meek and silent. (6a) You begged for my life when I was abroad—it was your courage that urged you to this step—and because of your entreaties I was shielded by the clemency of those against whom you marshaled your words. But whatever you said was always said with undaunted courage. (9a) Meanwhile when a troop of men collected by Milo, whose house I had acquired through purchase when he was in exile, tried to profit by the opportunities provided by the civil war and break into our house to plunder, you beat them back successfully and were able to defend our home.

[About 12 lines missing] (0) . . . exist . . . that I was brought back to my country by him (Caesar Augustus), for if you had not, by taking care for my safety, provided what he could save, he would have promised his support in vain. Thus I owe my life no less to your devotion than to Caesar. (4) Why should I now hold up to view our intimate and secret plans and private conversations: how I was saved by your good advice when I was roused by startling reports to meet sudden and imminent dangers; how you did not allow me imprudently to tempt providence by an overbold step but prepared a safe hiding-place for me, when I had given up my ambitious designs, choosing as partners in your plans to save me your sister and her husband Cluvius, all of you taking the same risk? There would be no end, if I tried to go into all this. It is enough for me and for you that I was hidden and my life was saved. (11) But I must say that the bitterest thing that happened to me in my life befell me though what happened to you. When thanks to the kindness and judgment of the absent Caesar Augustus I had been restored to my county as a citizen, Marcus Lepidus, his colleague, who was present, was comforted with your request concerning my recall, and you lay prostrate at his feet, and you were not only not raised up but were dragged away and carried off brutally like a slave. But although your body was full of bruises, your spirit was unbroken and you kept reminding him of Caesar’s edict with its expression of pleasure at my reinstatement, and although you had to listen to insulting words and suffer cruel wounds, you pronounced the words of the edict in a loud voice, so that it should be known who was the cause of my deadly perils. This matter was soon to prove harmful for him. (19) What could have been more effective than the virtue you displayed? You managed to give Caesar an opportunity to display his clemency and not only to preserve my life but also to brand Lepidus’ insolent cruelty by your admirable endurance. Hermann Desau, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Eng. trans. E. Wistrand; Berlin: Berolini, 1906) 8393.

• to show means (“you became . . . by doing good and not fearing”);10 • or to identify “attendant circumstances,” things that happened more or less simultaneously (“you became . . . when you do good and do not fear”).11 Although all these are possible, the final option seems most likely. Whenever the Christian women do these things, they are Sarah’s children. “Doing good,” as in the advice to slaves (2:20), probably has the broad sense of doing what is right, and not the specific sense of beneficent actions. “Do not fear any fearful thing” (m∑ phoboumenai m∑demian pto∑sin) reflects the language of LXX Proverbs 3:25 (ou phob∑th∑s∑ pto∑sin), “And you will not fear a fearful thing coming upon you.”12 In Proverbs 3, this sort of secu-

154

1 Peter 3

rity comes from seeking out Lady Wisdom and meditating on her teaching, for “she is more honorable than costly stones; no wicked thing can stand up to her” (LXX Prov 3:15). The Christian woman’s wisdom comes through focus on the “hidden inner person” as enlightened by Christ. The “fearful thing” that these women need not fear likely includes their husbands’ displeasure over their Christian praxis;13 the long passage by Tertullian above illustrates only a few of the possible points of friction. He, in fact, is citing these dangers to urge Christians to avoid marriage to unbelievers if possible; and Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, although he thinks married people ought to avoid divorce if at all possible, allows that a Christian married to a non-Christian is not bound by Jesus’ command to stay married at all costs. By contrast, 1 Peter’s attitude seems to be that the believing wife should continue to be submissive, doing the right thing, fearing nothing. But what is “the right thing” if the unbelieving spouse commands his wife to resume worship of the gods? At this point, the reader might recall how Sarah (twice!) acceded to her husband’s plans to pretend to be her brother rather than her husband because he was afraid for his life. In both cases, God preserved Sarah’s honor and Abraham’s life; might this be a clue that 1 Peter would recommend obedience, even if it went against principle? Or is the last part of v. 6 meant to encourage the women to do right according to God’s standard and fear no fearful thing, even if that meant beatings and/or divorce or abandonment? The text fails to answer this question. The heroine of the secondcentury Acts of Paul (and Thecla) faces death repeatedly for refusing to become someone’s obedient spouse, and each time God delivers her. But in real life, real women faced tough choices, as many still do, and one hopes that Christian communities were and can be as supportive and non-judgmental as possible. Advice to Husbands, 3:7 “Likewise husbands [should be subordinate to everyone] by living together wisely with the women, as with a weaker vessel, by demonstrating respect as to those who are also joint heirs of the gift of life, with the result that your prayers are not prevented.” Only one short sentence to husbands, but it contains several debatable points. First, the verse does not have a finite verb. Like 3:1, it begins with “likewise” and a participle, and so one must decide whether to translate synoikountes as if it were an imperative

1 Peter 3

(“live with!”) or as a circumstantial participle, depending on some other verb. I have taken it as depending on 2:13, “be subordinate to everyone,” and understand this verse to be the specific way that Christian married men should show subordination to all, just as 2:18ff does for Christian slaves and 3:1ff does for Christian wives.14 Second, the word translated “women” above might also be translated “wives.”15 However, it is not the normal word for wife (which appears in 3:1 and 3:5), and the switch to an uncommon word in the New Testament is best explained if the author means for the men to think about their behavior toward all the women in their household: wife, daughters, and female slaves.16 Third, many commentators presume, not unreasonably, that the situation addressed in this verse is that of the Christian couple, from the man’s point of view: “there were probably very few cases in which the husband had become Christian without the wife’s joining him in the Christian community.”17 “As those who are also joint heirs” does indicate that the head of household/husband is to treat the women as Christians, and could mean that 1 Peter intends to address only the Christian husband’s responsibility in an allChristian household. But it seems to me that just as one cannot suppose that in the late first century there were no Christian men married to non-Christian women or having non-Christian female slaves in his household, just so one must also allow that 1 Peter may intend for a Christian head of household to treat all females living there as he would other believers—whether they were or not.18 In the first century, a male head of household had absolute authority over his female slaves and unmarried daughters. Legally—which, as noted earlier, is not a reliable guide to what ordinarily happened—the paterfamilias could contract a marriage for his daughter without her consent or sell her as a remedy for bankruptcy. [I Am the Paterfamilias] He could abuse a female slave physically and sexually if he wished; he could give her to his friends to enjoy or to another slave as “wife,” and punish, sell, or execute her according to his whim. His wife had more recourse, especially among wealthier Romans, where it was possible for a woman to be married without transferring her dowry completely into her husband’s control (Plutarch complains about this practice, saying that there ought to be only one household account that is “ours” rather than “his” and “her” accounts). Even conservative

155

156

1 Peter 3

I Am the Paterfamilias McCullough is imagining a conversation between Julius Caesar’s father and his younger daughter (so roughly 100 years earlier than 1 Peter), but the law was the same at the time when 1 Peter was written. Law is not the same as social practice, however, and instances of fathers actually killing their adult children were very rare and treated as oddities by the Romans.

writers on household management urge men to exercise their authority over their wives carefully, avoiding violent treatment, since the goal is harmony and not fear. [On Treating Women with Care]

It seems I must refresh your memory, daughter. Do you know who I am? . . . I am the paterfamilias, the absolute head of this household. My very word is law. My actions are not actionable. Whatever I choose to do and say within the bounds of this household, I can do and I can say. No law of the Senate and People of Rome stands between me and my absolute authority over my household, my family. For Rome has structured her laws to ensure that the Roman family is above the law of all save the paterfamilias. If my wife commits adultery, Julilla, I can kill her, or have her killed. If my son is guilty of moral turpitude, or cowardice, or any other kind of social imbecility, I can kill him, or have him killed. If my daughter is unchaste, Julilla, I can kill her, or have her killed. If any member of my household—from my wife through my sons and my daughters to my mother, to my servants—transgresses the bounds of what I regard as decent conduct, I can kill him or her, or have him or her killed.

Thus 1 Peter’s advice begins predictably: “live together wisely, as with a weaker vessel.” [Vessel] That women’s bodies and constitutions were weaker than men’s was an ancient truism, but there was no single idea about what precisely the weakness was.

• Aristotle writes, “The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.”19 • The medical writer Galen’s theory was that women were weaker because they were colder than hotOn Treating Women with Care When a rider is too weak or effeminate to vault blooded men, and because their sexual upon a horse, he teaches the animal itself to bend organs were imperfectly formed.20 its legs and crouch. In the same way some men who • Xenophon’s opinion is that men are marry high-born or wealthy women, instead of improving more suited for outdoor tasks and women themselves, put indignities upon their wives, in the belief that they will be more easily ruled when humbled. The for indoor, since God “has made her body proper course is, while using the rein, to maintain the less capable” of the endurance needed for dignity of the wife, as one would the full height of the labor in the fields.21 horse. • The Testament of Reuben says that The Sun vanquished the North Wind. When the wind endeavored to take off the man’s cloak by violence and “women are more easily overcome by the blowing a gale, he only tightened his mantle the more and spirit of promiscuity than are men” held it the closer. But when, after the wind, the sun (T. Reub. 5.3)—women are actually became hot, the man began to grow warm. When at last powerfully evil, according to this work, he sweltered, he took off not only his cloak but his tunic. This parable applies to the generality of women. When but only because, being weak, they resort their husbands take violent measures to do away with to magic and demonic aids to entrap men extravagant indulgence, they show fight and temper; but if (T. Reub. 4-6). Colleen McCullough, The First Man in Rome (New York: Avon,1990) 219–20.

you reason with them, they give it up peaceably and practice moderation. Plutarch, Advice to Bride and Groom 8, 12.

1 Peter 3

• The Letter of Aristeas states instead that “the female sex is bold, positively active for something which it desires, easily liable to change its mind because of poor reasoning powers, and of naturally weak constitution” (Let. Aris. 250).

157

Vessel The only other New Testament use of skeuos, “vessel,” that might parallel this one is in 1 Thess 4:3-4: “For this is God’s will, your sanctification, to abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you learn to control (or acquire) his own vessel in holiness and honor . . . .” The verb ktasthai can mean “to acquire” or “to possess,” and if Paul was using skeuos to mean a woman, then the verse urges men to avoid sexual immorality by getting married. But as Linda McKinnish Bridges points out, the context of 1 Thess 4:1-8 does not address marriage anywhere, but is concerned instead with the baleful effects of immoral conduct within an early Christian community. She suggests plausibly that skeuos here is a euphemism for a man’s penis (as in “Get hold of yourself!”) rather than for a wife.

But no matter what philosophers, medical writers, or ethical tracts had to say about women’s weakness, nobody decided that because they were weak they were exempt from hard physical labor. Hierocles the Stoic observes that “women’s work” involves things that are “toilsome and require bodily strength, for example, grinding, kneading bread, Linda McKinnish Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2008) 98–102. cutting wood, drawing water, moving large vessels around, shaking out bedclothes, and everything else on that order.” This applied even more to female slaves than to wives: We have no need of a maid except one to weave, to grind meal, to cut wood, to do her stint of spinning, to sweep the house, to stand a beating, to do the family cooking day in and day out. Not a single one of these things can that girl do . . . . I’ll buy your mother some big lusty wench, a good one, though not good looking, as befits the mother of a family—some Syrian or Egyptian. She shall grind meal, do her share of spinning, take her thrashings—a maid like that will bring no disgrace to our doors. (Plautus, Mercator 396–98)

Because of this presumed weakness of women, ancient writers often advised men to take a firm but considerate hand in directing their wives, so 1 Peter’s “wisely, as with a weaker vessel” is pretty much status quo for his day. [Caring for a Wife] But the rest of the verse pursues a more specifically Christian approach. “By demonstrating respect as to those who are also joint heirs of the gift of life” demands that the Christian man treat household women not just as weaker vessels, but also as co-inheritors of the gift of life. First Peter, writing to such a broad audience, had no way of knowing which households were entirely

Caring for a Wife He was a husband now, and his chattering, fretful Dorrie, no longer a girlfriend but a wife, was slipping down sideways against his arm . . . . For her sake he would stay alert. He would keep guard over her, drawing himself as straight as possible in the seat without disturbing her sleeping body. He’d clamp his jaw firmly shut in a husbandlike way, patient, forbearing, and keep his eyes steady in the dark. He would do this in order to keep panic at a distance. Carol Shields, Larry’s Party (Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1997) 21.

158

1 Peter 3

Christian and which divided. But just as he could exhort the entire audience to “respect everyone” (2:17), so he can now urge the heads of household to treat all the women respectfully. One would hope that the male listeners would get the point— do not beat or rape your slaves; do not mistreat your daughter or your wife. If they were not persuaded by the exhortation to mutual respect, then perhaps the threat might work: “with the result that your prayers are not prevented” implies that if they fail to live up to the advice, God will not be attentive to their prayers. Other New Testament passages suggest that prayers Fragment from the front of a sarcophagus. Marble relief (probably Proconnesian), showing a Roman marriage ceremony. AD 2d C. British Museum, London, Great Britain. (Credit: may be hindered for other Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-4.0, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 1.0) causes: failing to forgive (Matt This is part of a sarcophagus from the second century, showing how 6:15), doubting (Jas 1:5-8), or this couple wished to be remembered. They hold right hands, symbolasking for something to satisfy a izing the strong bond of their union, and the scroll he holds is probably desire (Jas 4:3). For serious the marriage contract. The woman behind them is probably a goddess, believers, the prospect of having either Concordia or Hymen; the man beside him is probably their son. God turn a deaf ear would be most troublesome. If 1 Peter’s audience knew the Matthean tradition giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, promising that what he “bound on earth” would be bound in heaven as well (Matt 16:19), they might take this warning to heart. The advice to husbands in the deutero-Pauline Household Codes is more focused on the duty to love: Marital Concord

• Colossians 3:19: Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter towards them (or, do not treat them bitterly). • Ephesians 5:25-33: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church . . . so husbands also ought to love their wives as their own bodies . . . let each one love his own wife as himself.

1 Peter 3

Were 1 Peter writing only about how husbands relate to their wives, it would be surprising that he left off love, especially since he considered love as part of one’s Christian duty (2:22). But as general advice for how the head of household is to treat all the women under his charge, “live wisely” and “pay respect” makes more sense. How to Handle Evil Treatment, 3:8-22

First Peter, writing to the members of a tiny, despised religious group, tries in this section to prepare them for how to respond to evil treatment—to slander, to verbal abuse, perhaps in some cases to physical abuse or to the threat of death. These are people whose lives in the places they call home have become difficult enough that the author can call them “resident aliens and sojourners.” A character in A Way in the World reflects on how common this kind of injustice is: These people were without money, job, without anything like a family, without the English language; without any kind of representation. . . . They were people who had been, as in a fairy story, lifted up from the peasantry of India and set down thousands of miles away—weeks and weeks of sailing—in Trinidad. In the colonial setting of Trinidad, where rights were limited, you could have done anything with these people; and they were tormented by the people of the town. We all lived easily with this kind of cruelty. We saw it, but we seldom thought about it.22

The majority population did not need to think about it, but it weighed heavily on the minds of those who suffered under “this kind of cruelty.” For the recipients of 1 Peter, the mistreatment resulted from their choice to be called Christian and to refuse to return to the religion of their ancestors. An Indian living in Trinidad could be neither British like the colonial government nor Trinidadian like the indigenous population; but a Christian in ancient Bithynia could choose apostasy and regain whatever identity he or she had before conversion. Governor Pliny’s letter (see introduction) is evidence that some indeed gave up their new faith—some to avoid torture, but others without any apparent threat whatsoever. So in this section, 1 Peter needs to caution his readers not only against retaliation but also against discouragement.

159

160

1 Peter 3

Structure Here is a text so nice they chose it twice, once for the sixth Sunday of Easter in Year A, and then again for the first Sunday of Lent in Year B. The Easter part comes near the end, and includes the famous “preaching to the spirits in prison” section, plus the part about how baptism is like Noah’s ark, or maybe like the waters of the flood. The Lenten part is the first part, about Christian virtues and suffering. It is a long section, and yet (as discussed earlier) it does not divide easily. Verses 8-12 hang together, and the Psalms quote rounds it off neatly. But v. 13 returns to the theme of v. 9, and then the passage is off and running from how to face one’s enemies with Christian grace to how Christ did the same, to how and when he preached to the aforementioned spirits, to Noah, to baptism, and then, with the sort of wrench of the neck you get in a rollercoaster, back to Christ. For the sake of those who use this commentary, I will create the following sections, with the caveat that it is not clear to me that 1 Peter thought of them as separable units: 3:8-12, 3:13-17, and 3:18-22. Do not Retaliate—Bless! 3:8-12 “Finally, let everyone be harmonious, sympathetic, mutually affectionate, tenderhearted, humble, not repaying evil for evil or insult for insult, but blessing each one because to this you were called, so that you may inherit a blessing. For whoever wishes to love life and to see good days, let him stop [his] tongue from evil and his lips so as not to speak guile; let him recline away from evil and let him do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. Because the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous and his ears towards their request, but the face of the Lord is upon/against those who do evil.” “Finally” seems like it ought to introduce a conclusion of some sort, and yet the letter goes on for another two-and-a-half chapters. But recall that 1 Peter began back in 2:13 to describe how the readers should subject themselves to everyone, and gave advice on how that went in three specific situations: how all the readers should relate to persons in power (2:13-17); how slaves—actual slaves and metaphorical “slaves of God”—should react when they are unfairly mistreated (2:18-25); and how wives and husbands should behave (3:1-7). This “finally” could then be taken to mean “as for the rest of you,” especially since the author turns back to the

1 Peter 3

whole audience, giving advice that is meant to apply equally to everyone. There follows a virtue list—a string of things that the readers ought to try to be. “Harmonious” (homophrones) is literally “like-minded.” The author seems to mean “with each other” and not so much with him. “Sympathetic” is almost a transliteration (sympatheis) and means “feeling the same things.” [Sympathy and Mutual Affection] “Mutually affectionate” translates philadelphoi, “brother (and sister)-loving,” which helps to specify which “same things” the author wants the audience to feel. “Tenderhearted” is our metaphor—in our culture, you feel love in your heart—for what the ancients termed “good-boweled” (eusplanknoi) since they considered the innards as the place where you felt strong emotions. “Humble” is literally “thinking like a poor person” (tapeinophrones), and it is one of the things Christians identified as a virtue that many Greeks and Romans thought of as a vice.23 Josephus used a cognate noun (tapeinophrosyn∑) to mean “cowardly” (J.W. 4.494), and generally the culture surrounding first-century Christians would have thought that “beggarly” behavior was contemptuous [When Humility Is Not a Virtue]. The first half of v. 9 sounds a lot like a gospel saying that gets repeated by early Christians:

161

Sympathy and Mutual Affection At Friendship Park in San Diego, a chain-link fence divides the Mexican from the American side. Currently it is a meeting place for families on either side to reconnect: “I have witnessed people kiss through the fence, cry together through the fence, buy and sell tamales through the fence and say goodbye to dying loved ones through the fence” (24). Plans are to build two more fences with patrol/maintenance roads between them, eliminating the practice. There has been for several years an annual Christmas event linking Christians on both sides. Fanestil, a Methodist minister, decided to hold a “love feast” on June 1, 2008. “As we made our preparations, we were told by Border Patrol agents—for the first time in our years of gathering at this location—that we were not to pass anything through the fence. Doing so, we were told, would constitute a ‘customs violation’” (25). The Americans complied, and were deeply troubled by the spectacle of sharing bread on one side of the fence but not with their fellow believers on the other side. Two months later, on August 3, we gathered again, and this time I couldn’t bring myself to tolerate what seems to me a farcical prohibition. . . . This time I was determined to celebrate the sacrament. I consecrated the bread and juice and passed them through the fence to a Methodist colleague from a church in Tijuana. People formed two lines, one in each country, and came forward solemnly to receive Communion. People were given the choice of receiving the elements from either celebrant, the people on the U.S. side having been forewarned that the act of taking a small piece of bread through the fence might be considered by some an act of civil disobedience. I have never taken so much pleasure in not serving Communion. One by one, my friends on the U.S. side shook their heads at me as they approached the serving station and reached out their hands to receive the body of Christ through the fence. (25) John Fanestil, “Border Crossing,” ChrCent 125/20 (7 October 2008): 22–25.

• Luke 6:27-38: But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those hating you, bless those insulting you, pray for those abusing you. • Romans 12:14, 17: Bless those persecuting you; bless and do not curse. . . . Repay evil for evil to no one, but consider the good in the presence of all people.

162

1 Peter 3

When Humility Is Not a Virtue The word 1 Peter uses for “humble-minded” (tapeinophroneøn) is closely related to one used by Thucydides to describe the low condition of the Athenian army on retreat: “Their disgrace and the universality of the misery, although there might be some consolation in the very community of suffering, were nevertheless at the moment hard to bear, especially when they remembered from what pride and splendor they had fallen into their present low estate [tapeinot∑s]” (Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 7.75).

• Didache 1.3: Bless those insulting you and pray for your enemies . . . and you should love those hating you, and you will not have an enemy. • Ignatius, Ephesians 10.2: For their anger, you [should be] meek; for their boasting, you [should be] humble [same word 1 Peter uses in 3:8]; for their blasphemies/insults, you [should offer] prayers . . . . • Polycarp, Philippians 12.3: Pray . . . for those who persecute and hate you . . . .

First Peter does not repeat Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies, but emphasizes instead non-retaliation; love, in 1 Peter, is only directed toward God or toward other believers.24 Unlike the Didache, 1 Peter does not recommend non-retalBlessing an Adversary iation as a strategy for winning the hearts and When I asked students in class one day minds of one’s enemies. The motive clause, in to come up with specific, practical examples of how someone might bless an adversary, the last part of v. 9, focuses on how acting this the story was shared of a Christian soldier living in way is part of God’s call to believers and brings a barracks with his unit. Each evening, when he with it the promise of blessing on Judgment would read his Bible and pray before retiring, he Day.25 [Blessing an Adversary] was reviled and insulted by the soldier across the aisle. One night a pair of muddy combat boots Commentators note how name-calling and came flying at the Christian. The next morning, insults were simply part of ancient culture, espethe hostile soldier found his boots at the foot of cially between representatives of competing his bed, cleaned and polished and ready for groups. We see some of this in the Gospels, inspection. Several soldiers in this company eventually became Christians as a result of the inner when the Pharisees call Jesus a glutton and a strength of one who could return blessing for drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners, insult. and Jesus in turn calls them white-washed tombs Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) 218. and vipers’ offspring. Romans, writing about early Christians, called them a “depraved superstition” run by charlatans who could only attract the dregs of society: The call to membership in the cult of Christ is this: Whoever is a sinner, whoever is unwise, whoever is childish—yea, whoever is a wretch—his is the kingdom of God. And so they invite into membership those who by their own account are sinners: the dishonest, thieves, burglars, poisoners, blasphemers of all descriptions, grave robbers.26

1 Peter 3

Christians ancient and modern have often slung mud as vigorously as their opponents—take a look at Jude 8-16, 2 Peter 2:1-22, or Revelation 17–18. But 1 Peter, except for the one mention of how the profligate Gentiles will one day have to give an account for their behavior to God (4:3-5), prefers to focus on the behavior of believers. Earlier (2:23) the author had noted how, in his Passion, Jesus did not abuse or threaten his persecutors, choosing instead to trust in God’s justice. To drive home his point, 1 Peter quotes LXX Psalm 33(34): 12-16; modern critical editions of the LXX are close to 1 Peter’s wording, except that 1 Peter has a third-person imperative form where the LXX has a more direct second-person imperative—“stop your tongue” (LXX) instead of “let him stop his tongue” (1 Peter). In the psalm, “life” means present-day life, and the psalmist recommends, for the one who wants to live the best sort of life, seeking God and turning away from evil as the best policy. First Peter would not disagree with that, but probably wanted to include the idea of eternal life, and so may have changed the LXX text from “who is the man who wishes life, loving to see good days?” to “for whoever wishes to love life and to see good days . . . .”27 The advice of the psalmist is right in line with 1 Peter’s emphases: Psalm Stop your tongue from evil And your lips from speaking guile Incline away from evil Do good Seek peace, and pursue it, 34:13-14

1 Peter Don’t return evil for evil, 3:9 Set aside . . . all guile, 2:1 Set aside all evil, 2:1 Do good, 2:15, 20; 3:6 May peace be yours, 1:2; 5:14

The psalmist’s affirmation (LXX Ps 33:15-16) that God will take care of the righteous and will punish evildoers is also 1 Peter’s belief (2:23; 4:3-5). But 1 Peter does not imagine that God’s care of the good guys is like a magic shield protecting them from harm, as we will see in the next section. Do not Be Afraid—Testify! 3:13-17 “And who will mistreat you if you become zealots for good? But even if you might suffer for righteousness, you are blessed. ‘Do not be afraid or terrified of them,’ but sanctify Christ as Lord in your

163

164

1 Peter 3

hearts, always [being] ready to give a reply to anyone who asks you a word concerning the hope in you, but with meekness and fear, having a good conscience, so that whenever they slander you, those who revile your good manner of life in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if God should wish it so, to suffer for doing good rather than for doing evil.” Having just quoted the lines from LXX Psalm 33 urging readers to do the right thing, 1 Peter turns to how this might work out in readers’ lives. “Who will mistreat you” cannot be a straightforward statement, given what the author has already written about slaves who are beaten because their masters are cruel (2:18-20), and given what he will say in this section about slander. To be plain: 1 Peter cannot mean that if his readers were especially good they could avoid mistreatment. So perhaps v. 13 is meant hopefully: “be conspicuously good, and most of the time outsiders will leave you alone.”28 [Most People Are OK] Or, “be conspicuously good, and you will win over those who may have been inclined to mistreat you.”29 Or perhaps 1 Peter means to stress that God’s Most People Are OK protection is ultimate, and that even if your Most people live sensible and thoughtful lives. It’s a fact. It’s something I’ve adversaries do terrible things to you, you cannot noticed. Except for hardened criminals, most be irrevocably harmed because you belong to people manage to form meaningful attachments. God.30 Or perhaps it is ironic: “Who will misThey take care of one another. treat you? Well, we could start a list of those Carol Shields, Larry’s Party (Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1997) 174. who already have.” It is hard to judge between these alternatives. First Peter hoped Christian wives could win their husbands to the faith by their conduct (3:12), and expressed the hope that good conduct would silence slander (2:15), so the first two options are plausible. First Peter clearly believes that no ultimate harm can come to the believer, so the third reading is possible, but I do not think that is what the first part of v. 13 (tis ho kakøsøn hymas, “Who is the one mistreating you”) is about. The author only uses this verb (kakoø) here, but uses the kakopoieø in v. 17 to mean “do bad stuff,” not “do ultimate harm” (so also at 2:14); likewise the noun form kakopoios, “evildoer,” in 2:12 and 4:15 means an ordinary bad person. Given 1 Peter’s use of the word, ordinary harm or mistreatment is most likely.31 So either he means it in some modified sense—they (possibly, quite likely) will not harm you if you are vigorously good—or he does not—they will not harm you. Don’t you wish! In favor of the first, more hopeful reading is the proximity of v. 13 to the

1 Peter 3

165

Peter’s Denial psalm quote. In favor of the second, ironic reading are (a) the quick shift to “but if you do suffer” and (b) the suffering that the readers know that Peter observed and expeImage Not Available rienced on behalf of the due to lack of digital rights. gospel. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet However one resolves this, search using the credit below. v. 14 faces the potential sufferings of the righteous. Koine Greek had several ways of making hypothetical statements. This one, using a verb The doorkeeper recognizes Saint Peter. 6th-C. Mosaic. S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy. in the optative mood, is meant (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) to show that the author is not convinced that the condition In this 6th-century mosaic, Peter is denying that he knew Jesus. The fact in the “if ” clause will that these exhortations to bear up under suffering are coming from one 32 known to have failed must have helped the readers identify with the happen. There are various author; after all, he knew how hard it was to stand up for his faith. ways to explain the author’s hesitation: he is addressing groups of Christians who live in all sorts of situations, and he cannot possibly know which ones are in danger and which ones are safe; he hopes that their good deeds will sway their potential enemies, but realizes that sometimes bad things do happen to good people;33 during this period, actual persecution of Christians was sporadic and episodic, largely depending on how much one’s neighbors were appalled by the presence of Christians.34 All of these are plausible and are not mutually exclusive; whatever the cause, the author wants to say that suffering for righteousness is not every believer’s experience. But if it should happen, blessings! Makarioi probably is a predicate, as the translations have it, and presumably is the second half of the conditional sentence—if perchance this would happen, then “you would be blessed”—but the single word could also be taken as a wish—“may God bless you!” Because this sounds so much like the beatitudes in Matthew 5:10-11 (“Blessed are those persecuted for the sake of righteousness . . . . Blessed are you whenever they insult you and persecute you and say all sorts of evil things against

166

1 Peter 3

you”), the author could presume that it would remind the audience of Jesus’ teachings. The last part of v. 14 is a quotation from Isaiah 8:13-14, wherein the prophet is warned against following the majority opinion in the Syro-Ephraemite crisis. God tells Isaiah, “Don’t be afraid of them,35 nor be terrified; sanctify the Lord himself, and he will be your fear” (LXX Isa 8:13-14). Isaiah’s problem seems to have been that most people—King Ahaz, his advisors, and other prophets attached to the court—were so scared of the alliance between Israel and Syria that they were ready to sign on as vassals to the Assyrians—an “any port in a storm” attitude. But the fears 1 Peter wanted his readers to avoid were their own fears of the consequences that might follow if they were open about their Christianity. If they allow fear of being mistreated to silence them altogether, the movement might stop. First Peter presents the alternative to fear as “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” “Sanctify” and “Lord” came from his Isaiah quotation, where the prophet is being called to feel religious awe— holy fear—only toward God, making any other fear less important. To “sanctify” someone is to prepare them to enter a holy place— 1 Peter’s readers, no matter what their religious practices had been prior to their becoming Christians, would have known what sort of cleansing rituals were expected of them before they entered a shrine or temple (or the Jerusalem temple). [Approaching a Sanctuary] But Christ, resurrected from the dead, needs no Approaching a Sanctuary further sanctification. The phrase is a bit like Two girls have been shipwrecked and are “hallowed be thy name” in the Lord’s Prayer— begging sanctuary at a temple of Venus. how can we make God’s name holier than it The priestess says, “This is no state in which to approach the shrine, you know. Where are your already is? How can we further sanctify the white garments and thank-offerings?” Risen Lord? The answer, in both cases, is in our Plautus, Rope, 270–71; in The Rope and Other Plays (trans. E. F. conduct. We who bear God’s name should, as Watlington; New York: Penguin, 1964) 100. 1 Peter says earlier, “be holy, for I am holy,” so as not to bring God’s name into disrepute. In the same way, we sanctify Christ as Lord—we raise him up as the Holy One, our Master—when we commit ourselves entirely to him, ready to bear anything for his sake. “In your hearts” is not so much “in the secret places your neighbors cannot see” (especially since the verse immediately turns to how one gives verbal testimony) as “in your wills” or “in your decision-making.”36

1 Peter 3

167

Polycarp Refuses to Give an Account Verses 15b-16a may have been something you According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, once memorized, if your youth group was anythe aged bishop refused to give a thing like mine: “always [being] ready to give a defense (an apologia) to the crowds in the reply to anyone who asks you a word concerning stadium on the day of his execution. The proconsul kept urging him to swear by Caesar’s the hope in you, but with meekness and fear.” Fortune, and Polycarp told him that he would not, An “apology” (the Greek word translated “reply” since he was a Christian, but that if the proconsul is apologia) is literally a “word from” someone, wanted to hear about Christianity, he should usually to explain or to justify a decision. It can name a day and listen. When the proconsul invited him to try to persuade the crowds to let mean “defense” in the sense of an argument him go, he refused, saying that he was willing to made in a courtroom to refute an accusation or explain himself to the lawful ruler, since Christians to explain why actions were justified.37 [Polycarp are taught to respect those in authority. “But as to Refuses to Give an Account] It can also have the more those [people in the stadium], I do not consider them worthy to hear a reasoned defense.” general sense of an answer to a question or an Mart. Pol. 10.2. investigation (as at LXX Wis 6:10, “those who guard holiness in a holy manner will be declared holy, and those who have been taught these things will find an answer [apologian]”). “Have your answer ready” is the sense of v. 15b, “for anyone who questions you about your hope.” Here “hope” is probably being used to mean “your Christian faith” or “your relationship with Christ” and not just the readers’ hopes for eternal life.38 [Hope] First Peter has already commended “meekness” to wives (3:4), where it was paired with “quiet” as a contrast to someone who wore gold jewelry or fancy clothes. The ideal wife— quietly living her Christian life around her non-Christian husband—was urged to give more thought to her inner character than to her appearance. Now all believers are exhorted to be prepared to answer, but “with meekness” cautions them against arrogance. “Fear” is directed toward Hope God, not toward one’s adversaries . . . the Christian hope we celebrate is not optimism . (3:14b), but one’s fear of God—one’s . . .What we have is not optimism, but hope. We believe that humankind can and will by the power of the Spirit reverential respect for the power of the become not ever wealthier but more richly human, less frightLord—is supposed to keep us properly ened, more free, more secure in the peace that comes from situated, neither so cowed by outsiders justice and friendship; but only through overcoming the world that we never speak of our faith, nor so in Christ . . . . Our hope is the kind that goes through defeat and crucifixion to resurrection. We know that we shall somebelligerent about our coming salvation times have to fail rather than betray the very justice that we that our answers are disrespectful. struggle for; we shall have to fail rather than use the weapons Verse 16b comes back to the connecof the oppressor against him, but we can do this because we tion between what a Christian says and have hope, because we know that God will bring life out of such defeat and failure as he brought life out of the tomb of does, the all-too-problematic link that Jesus. is the undoing of so many of us. Be Herbert McCabe, God, Christ and Us (London: Continuum, 2003) 15.

168

1 Peter 3

ready to give your answer, not only with meekness and fear, but also “having a good conscience, so that whenever they slander you, those who revile your good manner of life in Christ may be ashamed.” Elliott paraphrases “good conscience” as “a sound mindfulness of God’s will,”39 which is apt, since a Christian conscience is “good” to the extent that the Christian is conscious of God’s direction. As at 2:15, 1 Peter seems to hope that the good deeds and exemplary behavior of Christians will shame Slanders their slanderers. The record on that seems to Our mothers brought us all up to be nice have been mixed. Tertullian’s Apology, written people . . . . So it’s unfortunate that nice people are so sensitive about vicious slander. around the turn of the third century, complains When your Aunt Hazel, the Mother Theresa of bitterly that the same old canards, such as Bonhomme, Iowa, hears via the Methodist Christians eating infants in the Eucharist, get grapevine that a neighbor named Mildred has told repeated but never investigated (Apol. 4). numerous Bonhommeans that she, Hazel, isn’t as nice as everyone thinks, but is “selfish” and has a [Slanders] On the other hand, Eusebius repeats a “glorified opinion” of herself, it knocks your poor story about the grandchildren of Jude, the aunt flat on her back. Stunned, she leaves the brother of Jesus, who were denounced to community outreach luncheon in tears, drives Domitian as being descendants of David and straight home, and spends the afternoon lying weeping on the couch, bewildered by hostility followers of Jesus. But when the emperor found from a woman she has gone out of her way to be out they were working-class people with calnice to. loused hands and that they believed Jesus was Garrison Keillor, “A Liberal Reaches for Her Whip,” in We Are Still someday to return to set up a spiritual kingdom, Married (New York: Penguin, 1990) 45. he dismissed them (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.20). If those who slander the believers are not shamed into silence now, they will be come Judgment Day (4:5).40 Although 1 Peter does not dwell on this as some other early Christian texts do, the author shares the common expectation that the wicked will have to give an account to God for their misdeeds. The Apocalypse of Peter, an early second-century text, depicts at least some of the righteous being able to observe the sufferings of their tormentors: victims of murder watch their killers being tortured by “venomous beasts” (or “evil, creeping things,” depending on which recension of Apocalypse of Peter you prefer); parents who exposed or aborted infants trapped in a deep pit of excrement while the infants watch from Paradise, lightning flashing from their eyes; etc. First Peter, so reserved by contrast, says only to his readers that it is far better to suffer (now) for doing right than to suffer (then) for doing evil.41 Possibly the author means simply that suffering for the sake of righteousness is preferable to suffering because one has done something wrong.42 But while the author does address the topic of

1 Peter 3

169

deserved suffering—taking a punishment because of one’s sins or misdeeds (2:14, 20; 4:15)—his point in those passages is that one should not sin. It would make no sense, then, to commend suffering for the sake of righteousness as “better than” suffering because of one’s own crimes, since the second sort of suffering is not supposed to be a live alternative for 1 Peter’s Minucius Felix on Suffering Now, Suffering Then readers. First Peter’s point in 3:17 is more likely M. Felix, a Christian, wrote Octavius, an meant to be similar to his argument in 4:12-17, imaginary conversation between a that God’s people are getting their suffering over Christian and his non-Christian friend. In these with now, following in the footsteps of Jesus. If sections, the unbeliever is characterizing Christians as he understands them. things are this bad for the believers, who would want to be in the shoes of the wicked when the They do not care about present tortures, but real judgment begins? [Minucius Felix on Suffering Now, dread those of an uncertain future; while they fear Suffering Then]

death after death, they are not afraid of death here on earth. Thus, deceptive hope soothes their fear with the comforting idea of a future life. (Octavius 8.3)

“Better to suffer for doing good,” writes 1 Peter, who then adds another “if ”: literally, “if the will of God might wish [for that to be so].” Not even from your present life do you learn by “Wish” is another verb in the optative mood, experience how fallacious the promises and vain the desires are which deceive you. You wretched indicating that 1 Peter is, wisely, unwilling to fools, judge from your present life what awaits state definitively what God’s will is for the you after death. Look here. A part of you, and that readers’ experiences of pain. Once again, we the greater part, and even in your opinion the better part, is in want, endures cold, and suffers recall what we know about the situation of toil and hunger—and your God allows it and acts Christians in the late first and early second cenas if He does not see it. Either He is unwilling to turies. We know that some were put to death help His own, or else He cannot. He is, then, either weak or wicked. You yourself dream about because of their faith—because they would not a never-ending life after death. When you are deny Christ, or because their understanding of shaken by a serious illness and are burning with their call from God led them to do and say fever and wracked with pain, do you not even then realize how matters stand with you? things that the authorities could not tolerate. It (Octavius, 12.1-3) seems, however, that many Christians in the same period were able to be identified publicly as Christians without danger—for instance, the church representatives who met with Ignatius at various times as he was being transported to his execution. First Peter, disinclined to say that chance determines whether one person dies and another lives, attributes it to God’s choice.43 It is an old conundrum: does God want us to suffer? Clearly God wants us to live righteous lives, claiming Christ as Lord and explaining our choice to anyone who asks. If the consequences for choosing Christ are suffering, then 1 Peter would say yes, God wants you to suffer for righteousness. But his answer is qualified in

170

1 Peter 3

several ways. First Peter does not urge Christian wives to preach to non-Christian husbands, but to let their godly character be their testimony; surely this was at least partly for the protection of the women. First Peter tells slaves that if they suffer simply because their master is cruel, they are following in Christ’s footsteps; the author never suggests that the slave bears any responsibility to try to convert the master, even by example, and is happy to include all undeserved suffering as Christlike. In other words, it does not seem to matter to 1 Peter what the immediate cause of the whipping might be; a whipping that comes because the master El Greco. Saint Peter in Tears. Canvas, Museo del Greco. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, thinks slaves must be whipped PD-Art (PD-old-auto)] regularly to keep them in line The artist captures Peter at the moment when he wept bitterly counts the same as a whipping (Matt 26:75). as punishment for attending Christian services. All undeserved suffering is in imitation of Christ, and so it is “grace”; if it is grace, then it also must be in keeping with God’s will. One may connect these dots differently, however. Not the slave’s suffering, but his or her patient suffering is “grace with God” (2:20). God does not will suffering, but doing good; the suffering is the result of choices by the wicked, for which they will give account on Judgment Day.44 All that being true, by urging us into righteous behavior, God is simultaneously urging us to risk suffering. [Suffering for the Cross] Jobes puts it succinctly: “The idea that God would never will anyone to suffer for doing right and that all suffering must be contrary to God’s will is an idea that must be discarded if Peter’s message is to be taken seriously.”45 These are deep waters indeed, but vv. 13-17 are actually the shallow end of this passage. In what follows, 1 Peter will attempt, as The Tears of St. Peter

1 Peter 3

he has all along, to ground undeserved suffering in the experience of Jesus. But since he has already done a section on Christ’s experience on the cross (2:21-25), he moves now to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, and how that can bolster the faith of his readers.

171

Suffering for the Cross Julian said: “Then we have to change the moral will. We have to change people.” Theo laughed. “Oh, that’s the kind of rebellion you have in mind? Not the system but human hearts and minds. You’re the most dangerous revolutionaries of all, or would be if you had the slightest idea how to being, the slightest chance of succeeding.” Julian asked, as if seriously interested in his answer: “How would you begin?” “I wouldn’t. History tells me what happens to people who do. You have one reminder on that chain round your neck.” She put up her . . . left hand and briefly touched the cross . . . it seemed a very small and fragile talisman.

Christ Suffered and Was Raised, 3:18-22 “Because Christ also suffered46 once for sins, the Righteous [One] for the unrighteous, so that he might lead you to God, having been put to death in the flesh [or by flesh—by humanity] but made alive in the Spirit [or by the Spirit]; at which time, having made the P. D. James, The Children of Men (New York: Warner, 1994) 94. journey, he also preached to those spirits in prison, because [they were] disobedient when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, during the ark’s preparation, when a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water; which also now saves you as baptism, its antitype, not by putting off filth from flesh, but as a request to God from a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right [hand] of God, having gone into heaven, with angels and Authorities and Powers being subject to him.” Before we plunge into the thickets, we need a map. First, note that the passage begins and ends with Christ’s resurrection. If you read v. 18 and skip to v. 22, you get the familiar sequence: Christ suffered, died, was raised, and ascended to sit at the right hand of God. Sounds remarkably like a creed, eh? And 1 Peter wants to use this sequence to argue that his readers should be done with sin— ready at all times to testify and suffer, if need be, for the sake of righteousness, but no longer really tempted to do the sorts of things for which a person might justly suffer (4:1-6). So that is where the argument is headed: Christ suffered for sin, but now that is over and done, and that should be the readers’ experience as well. In between, it appears to me that the progression of ideas goes this way: • Christ suffered for sins, and • was put to death, and • was made alive • at which point—namely, the resurrection—he preached to imprisoned spirits

172

1 Peter 3

who were imprisoned because they had not obeyed ❍ during Noah’s time ❍ when only eight people survived the water ❍ which reminds one of baptism • which “saves” because of the power of Christ’s resurrection • when he also ascended into heaven to sit at God’s right hand. ❍

We will take the first three and last two bullets together because they describe or interpret the work of Christ and are all fairly uncontroversial, and then we will discuss the middle five. “Christ also suffered once for sins, the Righteous [One] for the unrighteous, so that he might lead us to God.” The preposition “for” in the first line is peri, meaning “concerning” or “with regard to”; his suffering was related to sin, in other words. Not his sins, 1 Peter quickly adds, since he was “righteous,” or maybe the Righteous One; 1 Peter strongly believes, as the Gospels say, that Christ was not executed for anything he did wrong, but because of other’s sins—the combination of wicked motives that led the disciples, the temple authorities, the crowds, and the Roman procurator to collude in putting him to death. The second “for,” in “the Righteous One for the unrighteous,” is the preposition hyper, meaning “on behalf of.” His suffering was vicarious, intended to “lead you47 to God.” How? First Peter has already suggested that the manner of Christ’s death was meant to be exemplary, in that he died (a) unjustly, (b) without lashing out verbally against his persecutors, and (c) with full faith in God’s ability to save him (2:21-23). By leaving us an example to follow, Christ’s Exemplary Death God does not demand or require blood to Christ’s suffering and death leads us to God. redeem us. God neither inflicts violence nor desires suffering in order to set the divinehuman relation right. In spite of its pervasiveness in Christian imagery, the cost of communion, of reconciliation and redemption, is not blood and suffering. (22) Christ is our substitute not in the sense that he takes our place in the execution chamber and suffers our punishment for us, but in the sense that he offers God the fidelity, devotion and obedience that we should have but did not, and subsequently could not. (26) Daniel M. Bell, Jr., “God Does Not Demand Blood,” ChrCent 126/3 (10 February 2009): 22–26.

[Christ’s Exemplary Death]

But there is more. Christ “bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that by dying to sins we might live to righteousness” (2:24). The death of the Righteous One on behalf of the unrighteous ones enables them, too, to die to sin and live to righteousness. As already discussed in the comments on 2:18-25, 1 Peter, like many early Christians, understood Jesus as the Servant described in Isaiah 53. The Spirit of God revealed to Isaiah and other prophets that such sufferings were necessary for the Messiah

1 Peter 3

173

(although Isa 53 does not call the Servant “Messiah,” 1 Peter read it that way)—see 1:10-12—and so when Jesus went to the cross, he bore the sins of others, healing them with his wounds. Neither Isaiah 53 nor 1 Peter use the language of sacrifice to explain how this works, and as suggested in the discussion of 2:18-25, another explanation may have been unnecessary for 1 Peter. God’s plan was laid out in Isaiah; Jesus did what the plan said; therefore the results follow, just as God said. Christ suffered for sins once: the force of that word does not become apparent until 4:1-3, when 1 Peter argues that the time is long past for Gentile shenanigans. He is not making a supersessionist point; in other words, the idea is not “he died once, so animal sacrifice is no longer necessary,” as Hebrews argues. It is not even “he died once, so that you never have to die”—the Johannine move. First Peter’s point is that Jesus dealt with sin, and then started a new chapter; in the same way, you readers should be finished with sin and not still fooling around with it. After suffering and dying, Jesus was raised and then ascended, and at present all “angels and Authorities and Powers” are subjected to him. “Subjected” is the same verb (different form, same root) as in the advice to slaves (2:18), to wives (3:1), and to everyone (2:13). We know what he means by angels. “Authorities and Powers” probably means other heavenly beings, including those who do not necessarily carry out God’s purposes, as at 1 Corinthians 15:24.48 For 1 Peter, Christ is the prototype, the One in whose footsteps we follow. His readers are supposed to imagine Jesus Angels and Powers enthroned, commanding obedience and In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, as the bishop is about to be burned, he prays: receiving respect even from wicked divine “Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and beings, and picture themselves moving in that blessed child Jesus Christ, through whom we direction. [Angels and Powers] Be done with sin; be have received knowledge of you, the God of done with the temptations your neighbors angels and powers and all creation . . . .” Mart. Pol. 14.1. dangle in front of you; that time is past—turn the page. It is the “turn the page” emphasis that perhaps leads 1 Peter to move into the preaching-to-the-spirits section. I must confess that in my twenty-five-plus years of teaching “Intro to the New Testament,” I have often characterized this part as rabbit-chasing, where the author lost the main trail of his argument for a few verses. That may be correct, but for the sake of this section of the discussion, I want to presume that 1 Peter thought the audience’s consideration of the “spirits in prison” was going to help them

174

1 Peter 3

understand his argument—that vv. 19-21 are the main path, not a diversion. [On Digressing] Verse 18 starts with Christ’s suffering, saying that the purpose of the Passion was to lead you to God. After the word “God,” he then has a nice balanced pair of participles, each connected to a noun. The tricky part is how to understand the case of the nouns: Put to death by the flesh or in the flesh? Made alive by the Spirit or in the Spirit or in the spirit? The parallelism makes us On Digressing Reader, I think proper, before we proceed want to make the same choice for both—either any farther together, to acquaint thee, both “in” or both “by.”49 Here are the options: that I intend to digress, through the whole history, as often as I see occasion: of which I am myself a better judge than any pitiful critic whatever. And here I must desire all those critics to mind their own business, and not to intermeddle with affairs, or works, which no ways concern them: for, till they produce the authority by which they are constituted judges, I shall plead to their jurisdiction.

• In the flesh/in the spirit, meaning “as a human/as a spiritual being.” Pneuma, “spirit,” can mean “ghost” (Luke 24:36-39), and in 3:4 “spirit” refers to the (woman’s) inner self, so it is possible to translate this “in the spirit” (so the NRSV) and understand it to mean “as a spiritual Henry Fielding, Tom Jones (ed. R. P. C. Mutter; 1749; repr., New York: Penguin, 1966) 54–55. being.” But 4:6 poses the same balanced contrast of “by/in flesh” with “by/in spirit,” and there it is much clearer that “spirit” has to mean God’s Spirit—either “in the realm of the Spirit” or “by the action of the Spirit.” (See the later discussion.) • In the flesh/in the Spirit, meaning “in the human realm/in the realm of the Spirit.” This makes sense in context—Jesus was put to death in the human realm, to which you should also be dying, and made alive in God’s realm, which is where you should be focused. If this is what 1 Peter intended, it also provides a nice segue to a consideration of other beings living in the realm of the Spirit. • By the flesh/by the Spirit, meaning that Jesus was killed by humans but raised by God’s power. This reading also fits the context, especially given “the Righteous One for the unrighteous.” It also would give a clear entrance into the next part, where the question of agency comes up—how does baptism save? Both the second and third options work, and one’s choice between them does not change the sense of the argument. But one’s choice does color the translation and understanding of the beginning of v. 19. The verse begins “in/by which,” with the antecedent of “which” being “spirit.” Several options are possible for this phrase also: “in which [realm], namely the Spirit’s realm, he preached . . .”; “by

1 Peter 3

which—namely the Spirit’s—enabling, he preached”; or even “in which [event]—namely, when the Spirit raised him—he preached.” All of these make sense in the passage, but I opt for the third because the phrase en hø is so often an idiom for “when” in the Greek New Testament.50 By “spirits in prison” who were disobedient at the time of the flood, 1 Peter most probably means the “sons of God” from Genesis 6:1-4, the angels who were attracted to the beauty of human women. One can be fairly confident of this—first, because “spirits” normally refers to supernatural beings, not to dead persons (the terms for that in the New Testament are normally nekroi, dead ones, or psychoi, souls); and second, because “imprisoned divine beings” matches up with the fate of the fallen angels from Genesis 6, according to Jewish interpretive traditions found most fully in 1 Enoch 1-36, usually dated in the third to second century BC; and third, because this background explains the otherwise puzzling move to the flood narrative. First Enoch recounts the Genesis 6 story of the angels taking women as wives and begetting a race of giants. But 1 Enoch continues: the giants oppress the people of the earth, teaching them all sorts of wicked things, and themselves give rise to the demons who infest the earth (1 En. 15:8-9). At one point in the story God commissions Enoch to deliver this message to the “Watchers,” the fallen angels: For what reason have you abandoned the high, holy, and eternal heaven and slept with women and defiled yourselves with the daughters of the people, taking wives, acting like the children of the earth, and begetting giant sons? . . . you used to be holy, spiritual, the living ones, possessing eternal life; but now you have defiled yourselves with women, and with the blood of the flesh begotten children, you have lusted with the blood of the people, like them producing blood and flesh, which die and perish. . . . formerly you were spiritual, having eternal life, and immortal in all the generations of the world. That is why formerly I did not make wives for you, for the dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven. (1 En. 15:3-7)

Most commentators now agree that this is the most likely background for 1 Peter’s remarks.51 We know from Jude 14-15 that 1 Enoch was quoted and valued by at least some first-century Christians; Jude 6 also names these fallen angels as currently imprisoned by God, awaiting judgment. Second Peter 2:4 cannot

175

176

1 Peter 3

be counted as separate evidence, since it quotes Jude, but it shows how the tradition of the fallen angels continued to be relevant in early Christianity. The whole episode laid out in 1 Enoch is also referenced in other pre-Christian Jewish texts such as the Testament of Reuben (5:6) and Jubilees (5:2-11; 10:1-14); in other words, 1 Peter and his readers could have known these interpretive traditions without having read 1 Enoch. The fallen angels, according to 1 Enoch 18, were imprisoned in a pit inside one of the mountains at the edge of the earth; Jubilees 5:6, Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2:4 put the prison in the depths of the earth. First Peter just has the participle poreutheis, meaning “having gone,” which could mean up, down, or sideways, and could describe a journey by Christ to either location. But the main consideration here is not so much Christ’s compass bearing as his departure time: the “having gone,” which comes ahead of “he preached,” follows or coincides with “made alive in/by the Spirit.” In other words, this is not about what happened between sundown on Good Friday and Easter, but about what happened when Christ was raised. Verse 19, then, does not appear to be about Christ’s descensus ad inferos, his descent into the realm of the dead. Although early Christians widely agreed that Christ preached to the dead, and although 1 Peter was widely accepted and quoted by AD 150, no one earlier than Clement of Alexandria cited this verse in support of that belief.52 Christ “preached” to these angels—about what? The verb is k∑ryssø, which means to announce or proclaim something without specifying the nature of the message. First Peter thus deliberately chose an ambiguous term in 3:19—not “rule over” (1 Pet 5:3) or “judge/condemn” (1 Pet 4:6), but also not “proclaim the gospel” (1 Pet 4:6). He or his readers could have meant that like Enoch in 1 Enoch, Christ went to tell the imprisoned angels of their judgment by God. The implication for the readers would be that the judgment of the wicked, including powerful wicked spirits, is certain, so they should be comforted.53 As noted earlier, 1 Peter ends this paragraph with the image of Jesus sitting at God’s right hand, with “angels, Authorities, and Powers”—even evil ones— subject to him, in the same way that some of Jesus’ followers are even now subject to persons who may do them harm—civic authorities, harsh slave owners, unbelieving husbands. But readers’

1 Peter 3

177

current peril resulted from subjecting themselves to the One to whom every power will be subject on Judgment Day—so do not give in; take heart! [I Am Getting Along] Must that eventual subjection be coerced and hostile to Christ? Would 1 Peter consider it possible that some of the imprisoned angels could repent upon the preaching of Christ and I Am Getting Along I am a frayed and nibbled surbe forgiven? In 1 Enoch, the sinful Watchers beg for vivor in a fallen world, and I am Enoch’s intercession, but God declares that there will be getting along. no peace for them (13-14); Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 also Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (New York: sound like a final condemnation. But Joel Green notes Harper & Row, 1974) 242. that any proclamation by the Risen Christ must perforce be a word of hope along with judgment—“both of God’s comprehensive judgment and impartiality . . . and of the comprehensive work of Christ in redeeming all who will respond to the word proclaimed.”54 The ambiguous “proclaim” allows one to believe, or to hope, for the potential conversion even of the evil powers. Verse 20 locates the disobedient spirits at the time of the flood, “when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, during the ark’s preparation, when a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water.” The phrase “the patience of God waited” is unusual. The verb normally means to wait eagerly, expecting something; to take this in a straightforward way would mean that God’s Patience, in a sort of personification, was expectantly waiting for the opportunity to be demonstrated by saving a few people. Most commentators, however, take the phrase to be a compelling way to say that giving Noah the chance to build the ark was an expression of God’s patience—God, waiting patiently while Noah and his sons finish their construction project.55 The number eight comes from LXX Genesis 7:7, “Noah and his sons and his wife and the wives of his sons with him entered into the ark on account of (dia) the water of the flood.” The same passage may have also given 1 Peter his textual link to baptism: if you change the grammatical case of “water” in LXX Genesis 7:7 from accusative to genitive, then the preposition dia means “through”—they entered the ark and were saved “through the water.” Normally one would think that Noah and his family were saved from the water by the ark, but 1 Peter wants the connection to baptism, and so saved through water is the necessary sense. Baptism, he says in v. 21, is an antitype of the floodwaters. As

178

1 Peter 3

1 Peter uses the term, an antitype is a copy or representation of the type, the thing that prefigures it.56 In the flood, Noah and his family had to be saved through the waters: “the waters effected Noah’s deliverance from his evil world as baptism effected the deliverance of the Christians from their evil, contemporary world.”57 The water—a demonstrably deadly force—saves you as it saved Noah, all because of the grace of God. Having been baptized themselves, none of 1 Peter’s readers would have confused baptism with a mere bath for the sake of removing dirt, and since 1 Peter does not make the expected move—not as a removal of dirt, but as a cleansing from sin—we have to press a little harder for why “filth” comes into play at all. Some commentators suggest that it is related to the distinction made in 3:3-4 between physical beauty and inner character—baptism is not about an external change, but an internal change.58 That may be correct, but it seems to me more likely that the contrast is between baptism and the purification rites most ancient people practiced before entering a god’s presence.59 In 1 Peter’s understanding, one is “sanctified”—made holy—by the Spirit (1:2), both by God’s decree Noah and the Ark

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Noah’s Ark, from the Nuremberg Bible (Gen 6:11-24). Colored woodcut. (Credit: The Stapleton Collection/Art Resource, NY)

In this 15th-century colored woodcut done as an illustration for the Nuremberg Bible, the artist shows Noah being saved not only from the water but from the dangerous charms of the mermaids.

1 Peter 3

and call (1:13-16) and by obedience to God’s message revealed by Christ (1:22). Baptism does not remove “filth”—rhypos is an earthier word than “dirt”—that has to be done day by day through disciplined focus on Christ. Baptism, instead, is either a “request” or a “pledge” (eperøt∑ma can mean either60) made to God, either “for” or “from” “a good conscience.” Only the last phrase, “good conscience,” shows up elsewhere in 1 Peter: • 2:19: For this is grace, if someone, through consciousness [lit., “conscience”] of God, bears pain because of suffering unjustly; • 3:16: [be ready to give an account] but with meekness and reverence, having a good conscience. In both earlier cases, “conscience” probably means one’s awareness of God; a “good conscience” is good because it is fixed on God. Thus, the alternatives for the verse are: Baptism saves you, not by putting off filth from flesh, but • as a request to God from a consciousness fixed on God;61 • as a request to God for a consciousness fixed on God;62 • as a pledge to God from (or “of ”) a consciousness fixed on God;63 • as a pledge to God for [i.e., to maintain] a consciousness fixed on God.64 One could (and commentators do) argue for each of the four alternatives. If baptism is a request for or from one’s awareness of God, then it does not strip filth, but asks God to do so. Such an emphasis on holiness as God’s deed is certainly consonant with the rest of 1 Peter. However, the strongest contrast is offered by “not by putting off filth, but as a pledge”; in other words, baptism is not a purification rite at all, but is an act of commitment, like Noah’s “building the ark.” This reading also fits well with the overall context, which is to urge the readers to know that suffering for righteousness’ sake is much to be preferred than suffering God’s judgment for sin. Look at all those poor souls who perished in the flood! Just as Noah escaped the ancient judgment through the waters, so 1 Peter’s readers can hope to escape—but not just because they have passed through the water. Baptism was only the beginning—the sign of their commitment, either the commitment of their conscience to God or a commitment to God from a conscience already fixed on God.65

179

180

1 Peter 3

CONNECTIONS What must we do, as preachers and teachers of the Bible, with texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7? To begin with what one hopes is obvious, what the ancients believed about the makeup of human bodies and the innate weakness of females is simply wrong. Female bodies are not inferior or defective copies of male bodies, as some thought; women are not more easily tempted to sexual sins than men; there is no “natural” reason why men should be given authority over women. In the words of Miss Honeychurch, “I won’t be protected. I will choose for myself what is ladylike and right. To shield me is an insult. Can’t I be trusted to face the truth but I must get it second-hand through you? A woman’s place!”66 In my opinion, there is also no theological reason to agree with 1 Peter that wives should be submissive to their husbands. Just as we now reject slavery, even though the New Testament condones it, so we may now consider wifely submission to be a cultural construct that no longer adequately conveys God’s good news. No wife should fear her husband (or vice-versa); no interpreter of this text should suggest that a wife who speaks her mind deserves to be abused or that it is her Christian duty to submit to her husband’s whims. To be fair, 1 Peter does not say that wives should suffer in silence and does not speak of their having to endure harsh treatment patiently; perhaps he implies mistreatment in v. 6, but his statements are more oblique. All the same, the texts have been used—misused—to condone abuse, and Christian interpreters should, whenever 1 Peter 3:1-7 comes up, offer a clear condemnation of violence done to women, especially when it is done by their husbands. One interpretive strategy is to consider texts such as these as warnings—look how patriarchy, when unchallenged, puts women in a precarious position. The Christian wife of an unbeliever must be advised to keep her faith mostly to herself in order to avoid marital conflict, and the Christian man of the house must be urged to live considerately, not only with his wife, but also with all the other women under his authority as paterfamilias. These texts, indeed, should warn us about how easy it is to put a Christian veneer over the attitudes of the dominant culture without addressing the underlying inequities in the system. However, notice that 1 Peter is asking the believing husband—the only heads of household over whom he might have influence—to change.

1 Peter 3

“Accustomed to great authority over a wife and the entire household, [the Christian paterfamilias] now had to reinterpret all his relationships, and he had to do so without a model or precedent or even encouragement in society. No doubt he had support within the church, but even there he lacked the guidance of prior generations of Christian men.”67 It was not an easy thing 1 Peter was asking from his readers. Another strategy is to treat the advice as reversible, or at least to ask whether it could be. If gold and fine clothing are unimportant for women, are not they also immaterial for men? Shouldn’t men also be more concerned with developing a gentle, quiet spirit than with impressing people through their appearance? And, since 1 Peter 2:13 urges all Christians to be properly submissive to every human, couldn’t one argue for mutual submission in marriage— the idea that each spouse must learn when and how to give way to the other? First Peter’s use of Sarah and Abraham may even give the interpreter license to go that way, since God tells Abraham to obey Sarah (Gen 21:12) and since Abraham, who twice put Sarah’s virtue in danger in order to protect himself, at times seemed the weaker vessel. Things still need to change. Women still make less than men for comparable work; domestic violence still claims the health or lives of too many women (some of them in our congregations); single women and their children are disproportionately poorer than men. In churches, where women from the beginning of Christianity have been the majority of the members, there are still far fewer women in senior leadership roles. Consider using 1 Peter 3:1-7, then, as the springboard for discussing where change should and can occur in your community, and how your congregation might lead in that change. The injunctions in 3:8-12 and in 3:13-17 invite us to consider, once again, our responses to mistreatment. First Peter’s principles are simple, but hard to live out: • If, or when, you suffer at the hands of someone else, do not retaliate, but bless. • Do not be afraid of your adversaries, but be ready to explain your behavior to anyone willing to listen. • Keep your conscience clear, so that any accusations of misconduct will be lies, and so that you may, by good conduct, shame your opponents.

181

182

1 Peter 3

G. W. Offley, born a slave in Maryland around 1808, and later a Methodist minister, wrote about these things in his memoirs: Perhaps some person will ask why did I teach the art of wrestling, boxing and fighting, when desirous to learn to read the Bible? I answer because no one is so contemptible as a coward. With us a coward is looked upon as the most degraded wretch on earth, and is only worthy to be a slave. My brother’s master, Governor R. Right, of Maryland, taught his children never to take an insult from one of their equals—that is, from the rich and educated. Their domestic slaves were taught not to take an insult from another rich man’s domestic slave under any consideration. By this, you perceive, I was trying to be respectable by doing like the rich. Those who read the lives of our great statesmen, know they were duelists. Then I thought he who could control his antagonist by the art of his physical power was a great man. But I thank the Lord, since the 21st of Feb., 1836, I have been enabled to see things in a different light, and believe the man is greater who can overcome his foes by his Christlike example.68

Offley gives the remarkable example of a slave named Praying Jacob who always prayed at three set times of day. His master forbade the practice and threatened to shoot him for disobeying him; Praying Jacob “would finish his prayer and then tell his master to shoot him and welcome—your loss will be my gain.”69 Offley then says that no unjust treatment, even if it be lawful, has the power to degrade someone in the sight of God. “Therefore we may be oppressed by man, but never morally degraded, only as we are made willing subjects to do sinful acts against what we know or have the power to know is wrong in the sight of God and man.”70 Ancient believers differed over the meaning of Christ’s preaching to the spirits, and modern believers likewise. If it is correct to see 1 Peter 3:19-22 as Christ’s announcement of his resurrection and ascension to the disobedient angels (see comments above), then 1 Peter must have intended this as encouragement for his readers. Life is hard sometimes, and you may have to suffer, just as Jesus did. But God raised him from the dead, so take heart. All this makes sense, except when you stop to wonder what the proclamation to the angels adds to the value of the resurrection. That is, Christ’s resurrection, all by itself, is the promise to believers that if you hold firm during hard times, your reward will follow. Does

1 Peter 3

Christ announcing victory to the imprisoned angels make that message more comforting? If, however, we may think of Christ preaching to these imprisoned evil powers with the chance that they might be converted, then the hope 1 Peter is offering has a broader scope. Not only does Christ’s experience give you hope for your own salvation, but also for the eventual salvation of the cosmos. All powers are subject to Christ, even if it does not appear to be the case now.

Notes 1. George Eliot, Middlemarch (1872; repr., New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003) 2. 2. Plutarch, Conj. praec. 19. 3. Josephus, Ant. 18.66–80. 4. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) 204, thinks that the advice implies that some of the audience did “have enough wealth to make this instruction meaningful”; so also Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 212; others, like Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 221, think it to be traditional advice that had no necessary connection to the lives of the recipients. 5. Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2:243, citing a passage from Tacitus, Ann. 3.52.1–54.5. 6. Jobes, 1 Peter, 205–206; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 215; Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter (trans. Peter H. Davids; Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) 182. For example, “And Sarah said with tears, ‘My lord Abraham, what are you crying about? Tell me, my lord’” (T. Ab. 5:12). 7. M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 126. 8. Jobes, 1 Peter, 206; so also the NRSV (“as long as you do what is good”) and the NEB (“if you do good”). 9. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 573; Goppelt, Commentary, 224–25. 10. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 216, suggests this as one possibility; David Horrell, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peterborough UK: Epworth, 1998) 59, interprets the verse this way. 11. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 216, prefers this; so Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 90. 12. Elliott, 1 Peter, 574; Goppelt, Commentary, 225. 13. Goppelt, Commentary, 225; Boring, 1 Peter, 126; Jobes, 1 Peter, 206. 14. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 217, and Jobes, 1 Peter, 207, connect it to the imperatives “respect” in 2:17. Most others treat it as an imperatival participle.

183

184

1 Peter 3 15. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 575; Boring, 1 Peter, 126–27; Goppelt, Commentary, 226–28. 16. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 207; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 217; Green, 1 Peter, 99–100. 17. Boring, 1 Peter, 127. 18. Jobes, 1 Peter, 208, notes that one may translate the phrase “as even a coheir” instead of “as also a coheir.” 19. Aristotle, Politics 1254b. 20. Galen, On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 14.6-7. 21. Xenophon, Economicus 7.17-24. 22. V. S. Naipaul, A Way in the World (New York: Knopf, 1994) 21. 23. Green, 1 Peter, 103. 24. Elliott, 1 Peter, 609. 25. “Inherit” means God will grant the blessing in the future, at the Judgment. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 610; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 224–25. 26. Celsus, On the True Doctrine 4; trans. R Joseph Hoffmann (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 27. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 226; Jobes, 1 Peter, 223–24. 28. Boring, 1 Peter, 130–31. 29. Goppelt, Commentary, 240–41. 30. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 230; Elliott, 1 Peter, 620; Green, 1 Peter, 111–14. 31. Jobes, 1 Peter, 227. 32. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 230; Elliott, 1 Peter, 621–22; H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) 526–27. 33. Jobes, 1 Peter, 227–28. 34. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 230–31; Elliott, 1 Peter, 622; Boring, 1 Peter, 131. 35. Literally, “Do not be terrified by the fear of it [namely, ‘this people’].” In Greek, this is a cognate accusative, where the same root is used in the noun and its object, for the sake of intensity (Jobes, 1 Peter, 229). 36. Green, 1 Peter, 115–16. 37. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 233, explains it this way, although he does not think that 1 Peter primarily has in mind Christians having to defend themselves in court; so also BAGD, 117, and Goppelt, Commentary, 243–44. 38. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 233; Jobes, 1 Peter, 230. 39. Elliott, 1 Peter, 629. 40. Elliott, 1 Peter, 632, argues that the shaming in 3:16 is divine shaming and thus is primarily about Judgment Day events. 41. Jobes, 1 Peter, 232. 42. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 634–35; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 237–38. 43. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 238. 44. Elliott, 1 Peter, 634–35. 45. Jobes, 1 Peter, 233.

1 Peter 3 46. While some early manuscripts of this verse read peri hamartiøn epathen, “he suffered for sins,” there are several other variations: some substituting hyper (“on behalf of”) for peri (“for” in the sense of “concerning”); others adding “your” or “our” after “sins”; others substituting “died” for “suffered”; and others that combine one or more of those elements. I agree with the editors of the NRSV, the editors of the NestleAland text, and most commentators that “suffered concerning sin” is the reading that best explains the others. One can more easily imagine scribes changing “suffered” to “died,” adding “our” or “your,” and even changing the preposition under the influence of early creeds and other New Testament texts. 47. The majority and oldest reading is “you,” but some manuscripts have “us.” “You” fits the context better, and “us” was probably either an accidental change or one influenced by the creeds. 48. Elliott, 1 Peter, 686; Green, 1 Peter, 133. 49. Green, 1 Peter, 118, 135–36, argues for “in the flesh” (as a human) and “by the Spirit.” 50. Jobes, 1 Peter, 242. 51. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 255–56; Elliott, 1 Peter, 647–51; Jobes, 1 Peter, 242–45. Goppelt, Commentary, 258–60, argues for the “spirits in prison” being the souls of those who perished in the flood; so also Feldmeier, First Letter, 202–205. This is an attractive option, going back to Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but (a) there are no ancient texts supporting the idea that those who died in the flood were kept in a special place in Hades, and (b) one would expect the word for these dead to have been “souls” (psychoi) rather than “spirits” (pneumatoi). 52. William Joseph Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965) 16; Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. 3:19 and Its Context (Kobenhaven: E. Munksgaard, 1946) 14. 53. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 200; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 160–61; Boring, 1 Peter, 139. 54. Green, 1 Peter, 133. So also Ernest Best, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1971) 144–45. 55. Elliott, 1 Peter, 663–64; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 263. 56. Goppelt, Commentary, 266; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 267. Other ancient writers use type/antitype in other ways—e.g., where the antitype is a somewhat distorted copy of the original type. 57. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 266. 58. Elliott, 1 Peter, 677–79; Goppelt, Commentary, 268. 59. Jobes, 1 Peter, 254; Goppelt, Commentary, 268, also suggests this. 60. This is disputed by Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 272, but most agree that it can mean “response” or “request.” 61. This is how 2 Clem. 16:4 appears to understand the verse: “Prayer is better than fasting, but almsgiving is better than both. Love covers a multitude of sins [1 Pet 4:8], but a prayer [proseuch∑] from a good conscience saves from death.” 62. NRSV; Goppelt, Commentary, 247, 269–70. 63. Jobes, 1 Peter, 251–56; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 269–72; Elliott, 1 Peter, 677–82; Horrell, Epistles, 73.

185

186

1 Peter 3 64. Best, 1 Peter, 148. 65. Green, 1 Peter, 137. 66. E. M. Forster, A Room with a View (New York: Penguin, 1978) 191. 67. Fred B. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude (Louisville KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995) 53–54. 68. G. W. Offley, from his “A Narrative of the Life and Labors of the Rev. G. W. Offley,” in Roger Lundin and Mark A. Noll, eds., Voices from the Heart (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 167. 69. Ibid., 166. 70. Ibid., 167.

The End of Suffering 1 Peter 4

COMMENTARY What the Neighbors Think, 4:1-11

The cult of Christ is a secret society whose members huddle together in corners for fear of being brought to trial and punishment. Their persistence is the persistence of a group threatened by common danger, and danger is a more powerful incentive to fraternal feeling than is any oath. As to their doctrine, it was originally barbarian . . . . They also practice their rites in secret in order to avoid the sentence of death that hangs over them. There is nothing new or impressive about their ethical teaching; indeed, when one compares it to other philosophies, their simplemindedness becomes apparent.1

Celsus was a philosopher writing against the Christians sometime around 185. His book only survives in quotations in a work, Contra Celsum, written by his opponent Origen. Celsus thought Christianity repugnant, a religion of women, slaves, beggars, and children. He also considered Christians dangerous: “If they persist in refusing to worship the various gods who preside over the day-to-day activities of life, then they should not be permitted to live until marriageable age; they should not be permitted to marry, to have children, nor to do anything over which a god presides.”2 In the opinion of many ancients, Christian abstinence from ceremonies honoring the gods or the ancestors put their cities at risk of divine displeasure. First Peter, writing about a hundred years earlier, asks Christians to be prepared to face the disapproval of their neighbors, who are “surprised” when Jesus’ followers will not participate in normal civic activities. In 4:1-6, he describes an ideal Christian response to nonChristian hostility; then in 4:7-11, he focuses on how Christians might be mutually supportive.

188

1 Peter 4

Structure The lectionary reading for Holy Saturday is 4:1-8, but 4:9-11 surely belong together with 4:7-8. In my understanding, the doxology in 4:11 ends a large unit that began at 2:11 with “beloved,” and a new unit, also introduced by “beloved,” begins in 4:12.3 Admittedly, the divisions are not neat and precise. “The end of all things has drawn near” (4:7) is on topic with “Beloved, don’t be surprised at the conflagration happening among you for your testing” (4:12), and the themes of undeserved suffering and sharing in Christ’s experiences come up again. But as long as we consider these divisions to be mostly for our convenience, and not necessarily markers of how the author of the letter planned its construction, we will be fine. Comments on 4:1-11 will be subdivided into two parts, again for our convenience. Verses 1-6 finish the consideration begun in 3:18 of how Christ’s resurrection and ascension provide a model for the readers of how to face suffering. Verses 7-11 then return to the pattern found in 3:8-9 of giving advice and exhortation supported by short motive or result clauses rather than by an extended consideration of the person and work of Jesus. Suffering as a Cure for Sin, 4:1-6 “Therefore since Christ suffered in the flesh, you also arm yourself with the same way of thinking, that the one suffering in the flesh has ceased from sin, so that [you] live in the flesh for the remaining time not by human desires but by the will of God. For the past time is sufficient for doing the will of the Gentiles, who have walked in self-abandonment, desires, drunkenness, festivals, drinking parties and unseemly idolatries; they are surprised whenever you don’t accompany them into the flood of dissipation; since they blaspheme, they will render an account to the one prepared to judge living and dead. Because for this reason the good news was preached also to the dead, so that although they were judged according to human standards in the flesh, they may live according to God’s standards by the Spirit.” In vv. 1-2, the conclusion is relatively clear: the readers are to live the rest of their lives by God’s will, not by human desires. The earlier part is not as clear, but knowing where we are headed will help in its interpretation. “Christ suffered in the flesh” is another of 1 Peter’s formulations for the Passion: “Christ suffered for you” (2:21), “Christ suffered once for sin” (3:18), and “you share in the

1 Peter 4

189

Suffering to Prevent Sin sufferings of Christ” (4:13) are other examples. The Acts of Peter is usually dated to the Christ went through what many of you readers second half of the second century. It are going through now; since that is so, you includes a bizarre story about Peter’s daughter, ought to keep this attitude firmly in mind. who lay paralyzed. Peter explained to a questioner that when his daughter was born, God told him What attitude is that? “The one suffering in “this daughter will harm many souls, if her body the flesh has ceased from sin.” It sounds almost remains well.” When she was ten, she was proverbial, like “an apple a day keeps the doctor already so beautiful that a man, smitten with her, away”—maybe “lashings lessen lust”? Some, in tried to carry her away; God then paralyzed her so that her virtue would be protected, and the fact, have suggested that the point is that sufabductor brought her back to Peter. “We carried fering purifies one of the desire for sin; a her away, praising the Lord that he had kept his toothache or a flogging really will take your servant from defilement and violation.” mind off adultery.4 [Suffering to Prevent Sin] Some Acts Pet., in J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 397. suggest further that this is close to Paul’s “dying with Christ” image, of having been delivered from Sin, the cosmic force entrapping the world.5 The first option, however, does not account for “because Christ suffered”; 1 Peter understood Jesus to have suffered despite having no sin (2:22), so his mindset going up to Calvary would not have been “at least it will keep my mind off gluttony.” The second option, while possible given 2:24 (“having died to sins we may live to righteousness”), also does not account for “Christ suffered” rather than “Christ died.” Neither option quite fits the overall context, where “Christ suffered for sins” (3:18) was not about suffering for his own sins, but for others’. A third option, then, is to understand it to mean that suffering for the sake of righteousness is the consequence of one’s decision to follow Jesus: “the world behind me, the cross before me.” The readers are about to be exhorted to continue to stay clear of the excesses of unbelievers (4:3-4); 4:1, then, means that just as Christ, following God’s will, suffered unjustly but was then exalted (3:18-22), so the readers should make up their minds to abandon their former ways of life, suffering whatever consequences come from that decision, and look forward to their ultimate salvation.6 In a nutshell, if you suffer because of the wickedness of others, you are following in Christ’s steps, and you are demonstrating that you are done with sin, or at least the kind of sin that characterizes the lives of unbelievers. The result of that resolution is stated in v. 2: “so that [you] live in the flesh for the remaining time not by human desires but by the will of God.” [Enduring Pain] “You’ve been in there long enough!” yells the parent to the teenager holed up in the bathroom. Verse 3 is close to that, but

190

1 Peter 4

acknowledges that the readers have already stepped away from their past life: “For the past time is sufficient for doing the will of the Gentiles.” The time you spent living like that is enough—more than enough, even.7 Time now for moving on to other things. But before moving along, 1 Peter spends a couple of verses describing and criticizing “Gentile” life. The vice list in 4:3 is short, especially compared to others in the New Testament and early Christian literature, and appears to be focused on sins or temptations associated with parties, festivals, and other celebratory moments. [A Selection of Early Christian Vice Lists] By “Gentile,” 1 Peter means “non-Christian” (and probably “non-Jewish” as well, although that is more debatable). All these same vices were condemned by Greek and Gil Adamson, The Outlander (New York: HarperCollins, 2008) 222–23. Roman ethical writers, so perhaps the author would concede that not every “Gentile” thought these sorts of things acceptable;8 yet they are common Jewish characterizations of non-Jewish behavior, so perhaps 1 Peter does mean that these are broadly descriptive of life in the empire in his day.9 Enduring Pain “I shall show you the work of a man . . .” he unbuttoned his shirt, and to her dismay, removed it, “who called himself a teacher. A teacher to me and other boys.” At this, he unbuttoned his long johns and stood naked to the waist. The widow wanted to avert her gaze from the sight of a man half naked in church, but what she saw stunned her. He was a normal man, normally built, with strong arms and torso. But across his chest were many diagonal marks, raised white scars, and across his shoulders lay dozens more—deep, indelible signs of some weapon, a whip or a cane. He turned to display his back. More marks, intersecting and parallel, one over another, some deep, some light, like the surface of a butcher’s chopping block . . . . The widow had a vision of a boy not even trying to evade the bite of the whip, and refusing to flinch. “We resolve to endure the burdens of the world,” the Reverend said into the silence. “What more can we do? We cannot know from which hand will come comfort, from which hand punishment. How much in your life has been a surprise to you? And you? We cannot save ourselves from injury, because it will surely come. Life itself is injury, the way bread is made of flour. We can only strive, with a merry heart, to do the right thing. Effort is your salvation. Of course, there is no effort without error and shortcoming. But give yourself over to resolve. To courage! Be a man! Which of you wishes to be among those timid and cold souls who have known neither victory nor defeat?”

• “Self-abandonment” (aselgeia) translates a word that means “conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable.”10 In Romans 13:13 and in 2 Corinthians 12:21 it appears to mean “sexual excess,” and coming before epithymia here, it could mean the same.11 • “Desires” (epithymia), a word that 1 Peter has used before, must in this context mean “evil desires” or “lusts” or something of the sort.12 [Stoic Advice on the Desires] • “Drunkenness” (oinophlygia) is condemned by everyone, including Stoics (“much undiluted wine is an enemy of properly

1 Peter 4 A Selection of Early Christian Vice Lists Romans 1:28-31: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Mark 7:20-23: And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” 1 Corinthians 5:11: But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

191

1 Timothy 6:3-5: Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. Didache 5:1-2: And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rapines, false witnessings, hypocrisies, doubleheartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness . . . . Barnabas 20:1: But the way of darkness is crooked, and full of cursing; for it is the way of eternal death with punishment, in which way are the things that destroy the soul, viz., idolatry, over-confidence, the arrogance of power, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, adultery, murder, rapine, haughtiness, transgression, deceit, malice, selfsufficiency, poisoning, magic, avarice, want of the fear of God.

performing one’s duties”)13 and Jews (“Do not be drunk with wine, because wine perverts the mind from the truth,” T. Jud. 14). • “Festivals” (kømos) translates a word that can mean a party or celebration or festival; in the New Testament, it seems always to mean something negative. Festivals in antiquity would have honored some aspect of the divine, which would have offended the Jewish and Christian devotion Stoic Advice on the Desires Do not flee from what is necessary. to God alone, in addition to whatever sorts of For the one who flees from what is carousing went on. First Peter may have meant inevitable must be unhappy, and the one who these public events but might also have meant desires what is impossible must fail to obtain it private parties, also likely to include behavior of . . . . If, therefore, a wise man lives by these principles, he is free from pain and confusion, a which the writer would not have approved. happy man. But if he is ignorant of these princi• “Drinking parties” (potos): while wine (mixed ples, he will never cease from being dependent with water) would have been served at nearly on vain hopes and from being constrained by every meal in antiquity, there were parties—so we desires. Letter 35, “To Aper,” in Abraham J. are told—where getting drunk seemed to be the (Pseudo-)Crates, Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBL Sources for Biblical Study object. There was even an ancient version of beer 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977) 89.

192

1 Peter 4

Guests at a Wine Party

(Credit: Barclay Burns)

pong, where guests on dining couches along the walls slung the last couple of drops of wine, including any dregs, at a wide-mouthed cup standing in the middle of the room. • “Unseemly idolatries” (athemitos eidølolatria): the first word means “forbidden” or “disgusting,”14 while the second means the service or worship of idols. This, of course, appears frequently in Jewish criticisms of Greek and Roman practice, but Romans and Greeks thought of the images of their gods in quite a different way. We should also be reminded that paying honor to the gods went along with “festivals” at which one might overindulge in drinking, so that these might all be linked behaviors in the mind of 1 Peter.15 If “self-abandonment” and “desires” are both mostly about sexual misconduct, and “drunkenness,” “festivals,” and “drinking parties” about overdrinking, then 1 Peter is focused in his criticisms of “Gentile” society. It is important to understand that what the author may be objecting to was probably seen by the wider society as normal behavior—perhaps a little oafish, but nothing completely out of bounds. “Festivals,” after all, included ancient events to honor one’s ancestors, the gods who protected one’s city, and the anniversary of the emperor’s accession. “Drinking parties” might be held from time to time by the trade guild or burial society to which one belonged. Christians like 1 Peter thought that sex with slaves and prostitutes was immoral; most Greeks and Romans considered slaves and prostitutes as living property and thought that sex with them carried no moral baggage. We get the impression from

1 Peter 4

193

Temptations of a Banquet

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Banqueting scene with devils. 1300–1320. One of a set illustrating the temptations, from poems by Matfre Ermengau. British Library, London, Great Britain. (Credit: British Library/HIP/Art Resource, NY)

In this painting, the banqueters are being enticed into sin by demons; 1 Peter would probably agree with the idea that banquets were dangerous situations for believers.

ancient literature that guests at some dinner parties could “sample” the slaves and entertainers as they would the food and drink served. And of course, everywhere one went, at every formal occasion and at many informal meals, there would be libations for the gods. Some invitations to parties were issued in the You Won’t Accompany Them name of gods; others were held in the banquet Minucius Felix’s non-Christian dialogue rooms of temples, with busts or statues of the partner mocks Christians for choosing an uncertain reward after death over participation in patron deity prominently displayed. “proper pleasures” now: In other words, 1 Peter may be describing what most Greek and Roman readers were In the meantime, troubled and worried, you refrain accustomed to do regularly—not just the from proper pleasures: you do not frequent the theatres; you do not take part in the processions; Animal House types, but normal everyday citithe public banquets are held without you; you zens. You’ve been there, done that, says 1 Peter, shun the sacred games, the viands set apart for the altars and the drinks poured in libation upon and there is no need to go back to what you them. Thus, you are afraid of the very gods you used to do. But your family and neighbors “are deny. You do not crown your heads with flowers surprised whenever you don’t accompany them and you begrudge your bodies perfume; you keep the ointments for the corpses and you even hold into the flood of dissipation.” [You Won’t Accompany back the garlands from the tombs—you quaking Them] “The flood of dissipation” is a colorful palefaces, deserving pity . . . . Thus, in your summary of all the earlier objections. wretched folly, you will neither rise for another life nor live in this one. “Dissipation” literally means “non-saving stuff ”—things that do not do anybody any Minucius Felix, Octavius 12.4-6.

194

1 Peter 4

“They Are Surprised” The verb can be translated “they think it strange” or “they are perplexed.” The conduct of Christians causes the nonbelievers to wonder at the change in their lives. Tertullian speaks of this:

good,16 and “flood” is probably meant to remind the readers of the deluge just discussed at the end of chapter 3. Baptism, the flood’s antitype, saves (3:21), but this flood destroys, setting people up for Judgment Day.17 The final word in v. 4 is a participle, Others censure those whom they knew in the past, before they acquired this name, as vagrant, blasph∑mountes. It is adverbial, either modifying good-for-nothing scoundrels, and they censure “they are surprised” at the beginning of v. 4 or them in the very act of praising them. In the blind“they will render” at the beginning of v. 5. [“They ness of their hatred they stumble into favorable criticism. “That woman! How dissolute and frivoAre Surprised”] If 1 Peter meant the former, then it lous she was! And that young man, how much could be translated as a sort of interjection: more prodigal and debauched he used to be! They “they are surprised whenever you don’t accomhave become Christians.” Thus, the name which was responsible for their reformation is set down pany them into the flood of dissipation, the as a charge against them. blasphemers!” Or it could come earlier in the Some, even, at the expense of their own sentence, with less punch, but with the same advantage, bargain with their hatred, satisfied to suffer a personal loss, provided that their home be grammatical function: “they are surprised, blasfreed. phemers as they are, whenever you don’t accompany them into the flood of dissipaTertullian, Apol. 3.3-4. tion.”18 If 1 Peter meant it to go with v. 5, it is probably causal: “since they blaspheme, they will render an account . . . .”19 I am guessing it goes with v. 5, and also guessing that it should be translated “blaspheme,” as an offense against God, rather than “slander,” as an offense against the readers. The word can have either sense, but if it is correct to take it as the reason for their condemnation on Judgment Day, blasphemy seems more appropriate. Again, what 1 Peter labels blasphemy would probably have seemed completely innocuous to most of his readers. Everyone handled coins with the emperor’s picture on them, with inscriptions denoting him as “divine” and/or “son of the divine X.” These inscriptions were ubiquitous: on statues, on public monuments, even on mileposts on the highways: “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the deified Augustus, grandson of the deified Julius, pontifex maximus, consul five times . . . 64 [miles].”20 Poets sometimes flattered the reigning emperor by speaking of him as the physical presence of God on earth and the savior of the world’s peoples. In Domitian’s time (81–96), Statius called him “proximus ille deus,” or “the God here present,”21 and “hope of mankind,”22 and Martial23 called him “savior.” Everyone had likely heard the emperor praised in these terms on public occasions honoring him, for many cities of Asia Minor made a holiday of the date of the emperor’s accession.

1 Peter 4

On this day, according to Tacitus and Pliny, oaths of loyalty to the emperor were dutifully and publicly administered by the empire’s local representatives to the entire population. First Peter’s readers, even if they never personally swore to be loyal to Caesar until death, would nevertheless have heard others make these sorts of pledges: I solemnly swear that I will be an enemy to those who I learn are enemies to Gaius Caesar Germanicus . . . . I will hold neither myself nor my children dearer than his welfare . . . . If I knowingly swear or shall swear falsely, then may Jupiter Best and Greatest and the deified Augustus and all the other immortal gods cause me and my children to be deprived of fatherland, safety, and all good fortune.24

195

Silver Denarius

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Octavian (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, later Emperor Augustus, 63 BC–AD 14) in armor. Reverse of a silver denarius. 32–29 BC. Muenzkabinett, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany. (Credit: Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz/Art Resource, NY)

This denarius had Augustus’s face on the front. The rear is pictured, showing the emperor as a military conqueror, with the inscription “Divine Caesar.”

For 1 Peter, this is all blasphemy, and those who do these sorts of things will have to account for their behavior. So far, so good. Christ suffered for righteousness’ sake, and then was raised to glory. Wouldn’t you prefer that arrangement than the opposite—to join in with the Gentiles now, perhaps sparing yourselves any immediate consequence, but ensuring for yourselves an unpleasant experience on Judgment Day? “Better to suffer [now] for doing good—if God should wish it so—than to suffer [then] for doing evil” (3:17). But then 1 Peter turns once again to Christ’s—at least, I think it is Christ’s—preaching after his death: “Because for this reason the good news was preached also to the dead, so that although they were judged according to human standards in the flesh, they may live by God’s standards in the spirit.” There are so many problematic issues in this verse that one scarcely knows where to start. Almost every word is debated, so we might as well begin at “for this reason.” That eis touto on the front of the verse means “for this

196

1 Peter 4

reason” is not under question (1 Peter has the same construction at 2:21), but what is the antecedent for “this”? The last phrase of v. 5 speaks of God (or Christ—1 Peter does not Image Not Available specify25) acting as judge of due to lack of digital rights. those who put pressure on the Please view the published letter recipients to join them in commentary or perform an Internet their “Gentile” lifestyle. The search using the credit below. connection seems to be that God, who is prepared to judge the living and the dead at the Great Assize, gave “the dead”— whoever they turn out to Cristoforo De Predis (1440–1486). Christ Liberating Adam and Eve and All of the be—an opportunity to hear and Righteous from Limbo. Biblioteca Reale, Turin, Italy. (Credit: Alinari/Art Resource, NY) to respond to the gospel. If this is correct, “for this reason” In this rendering from the 15th century, Christ leads Adam and Eve, Abel, kings David and Solomon, John the Baptist, and others to means “because God will judge Paradise. the living and the dead.” “Also to the dead” could be translated “even to the dead,” if we conclude that the author is trying to stress the far reach of God’s powers of judgment and salvation. The verb euangelisth∑ is passive—“the good news/gospel was proclaimed”—and normally one would suspect a “divine passive,” especially since God seems to be involved in the previous verse. But euangelizø, “preach the gospel/good news,” does not normally have God as subject; instead, Jesus or an angel or one of Jesus’ followers tells the good news about God’s kingdom. If “the gospel was proclaimed” does not likely mean “God proclaimed the good news,” then the passive was probably used because the subject was general rather than specific. The passive voice does not exclude Christ preaching the gospel to the dead, but the passive probably means that if Christ did it, he was not the only one; otherwise, one would expect an active verb with Christ as the specified subject. The big point of debate, of course, is the identification of “the dead.” Although some have argued that “dead” means “spiritually dead”26—the gospel was preached to those Gentiles up in 4:3-5 who are so soused that they will not repent—that would involve a rather sudden change of meaning from “really dead” in 4:5 to Christ Liberating Saints from Hell

1 Peter 4

“metaphorically dead” in 4:6.27 If “the dead” means “people who have died,” then 1 Peter might mean one of the following: • Recently dead believers—some commentators suggest that 1 Peter’s point is similar to the one Paul makes in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. First Peter’s readers knew Christians who now have died; the gospel was given to them so that they would have the chance to live in the realm of the Spirit by God’s standards (or by God’s grace or by God’s decree).28 Perhaps unbelievers have been ridiculing the Christian hope as part of their call for believers to join them in the kinds of activities noted in 4:2-4. On this reading, 4:6 is meant to comfort the readers. • Recently dead unbelievers—some commentators also imagine that 4:6 offered comfort, but for a different reason. Those who press you to join them in profligate behavior will have to give an account—even those who are dead now. After all, they had a chance to respond to the gospel but chose not to do so.29 There is no reason why this option could not be combined with the one above—1 Peter could have meant “dead” to signify “recently dead,” and could have included unbelievers, who will give an account, and believers, who will “live in the spirit.” • All the dead—when 1 Peter writes that God (or Christ) will judge the living and the dead, he means all the dead. That, then, is the most natural reading of “to the dead” in v. 6. But the earliest evidence that any early Christian took it that way is in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata. He argues that justice demands that in order for the wicked to be condemned for failing to respond to the gospel, they must hear it first, and so argues that Christ and the apostles preached to all those who had died before the birth of Christ. [Clement of Alexandria on Preaching to the Dead] • The righteous dead—this ancient interpretation asserts that Jesus preached to those who had long been dead but who had served the true God: Adam, Noah, and other Old Testament “saints.” St. Augustine in his “Letter to Evodius” notes that this is the opinion of all the orthodox, so he guesses he will believe it also, although he has trouble knowing what to do with Abraham’s bosom—if Abraham is in God’s presence, why are the other prophets and patriarchs still in Hades? [Augustine on Preaching to the Dead] For Tertullian, this was not a problem: Abraham was in Hades, awaiting the resurrection, and Christ preached to him and the

197

198

1 Peter 4

Clement of Alexandria on Preaching to the Dead Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel to those in Hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, “Hades says to Destruction, We have not seen his form, but we have heard his voice.”[Job 28:22?] It is not plainly the place, which, the words above say, heard the voice, but those who have been put in Hades, and have abandoned themselves to destruction, as persons who have thrown themselves voluntarily from a ship into the sea. They, then, are those that hear the divine power and voice. For who in his senses can suppose the souls of the righteous and those of sinners in the same condemnation, charging Providence with injustice? But how? Do not [the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather that had been chained, and to those kept “in ward and guard”? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the gospel in Hades. [Clement then discusses whether Christ preached both to Jews and Gentiles in Hades or to Jews only, leaving the Gentiles to the apostles. He then argues that this preaching was necessary for the judgment to be just.] Did not the same dispensation obtain in Hades, so that even there, all the souls, on hearing the proclamation, might either exhibit repentance, or confess that their punishment was just, because they believed not? And it were the exercise of no ordinary arbitrariness, for those who had departed before the advent of the Lord (not having the Gospel preached to them, and having afforded no ground from themselves in consequence of believing or not) to obtain either salvation or punishment. . . . If, then, he preached the gospel to those in the flesh that they might not be condemned unjustly, how is it conceivable that he did not for the same cause preach the gospel to those who had departed this life before his advent? Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.

other patriarchs and prophets— not to convert them, but to inform them about his successful mission (On the Soul, 55).

The problem with the first, second, and fourth options is exegetical: “dead” in 4:5 seems to mean all the dead—“the living and the dead” are meant to be mutually exclusive subsets of the universal set of all persons—and so the reader has no preparation for “dead” in 4:6 meaning something else. The problems with option 3 are theological: Why should the dead get another opportunity to respond to the gospel? And how would that encourage the readers of 1 Peter to stand firm in the face of suffering? Augustine laid out the objections: If the second chance existed once, why then and not always? And if it always has existed, then why worry about evangelism so much? As Augustine said, the belief that Christ descended into the realm of the dead between Good Friday and Easter is very old, and based on Acts 2:31, “Forseeing this, David spoke of Christ’s resurrection, ‘He was not abandoned into Hades nor did his flesh know corruption.’” Five witnesses from early to mid-second century—Ignatius, the Odes of Solomon, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, and Justin Martyr—testify either to the belief that Christ preached to the dead or that Christ and others preached to the dead.30 [Christ’s Descent into Hades among Early Believers] It is not clear, however, that all these texts understand the descent in the same way. Ignatius appears to think of it as the time when the prophets and patriarchs were raised to be with Christ in God’s presence—an opinion that Tertullian disputes on the grounds that if real death and a stay in Hades was good enough for

1 Peter 4 Augustine on Preaching to the Dead It is clearly shown that the Lord died in the flesh and descended into hell, for it is not possible to controvert the prophecy which says, “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” and which Peter quotes in the Acts of the Apostles, so that no one may dare to give it another meaning . . . . Who then but an unbeliever will deny that Christ was in hell? Almost the whole Church agrees that in the case of the first man, the father of the human race, the Lord did free him from there, and wherever this tradition came from, we have to believe that the Church has grounds for accepting it, even though no express authority of the canonical Scriptures is quoted for it. . . . Some authorities add that this boon was granted to the saints of old: Abel, Seth, Noah and his household, Abraham, Isaac,

199

Jacob, and other patriarchs and prophets, that when the Lord descended into hell they were freed from those sorrows. I do not see any way of explaining how Abraham, into whose bosom the poor and godly Lazarus was carried, was in those sorrows. . . . Moreover, if there were no more than two there [in a place of peace, not in hell], who would venture to say that the patriarchs and prophets were not there, men to whose goodness and devotion the Scripture of God bears such resounding witness? From St. Augustine, “Letter 164 (To Evodius)”; Letters 131–164 (trans. Sr. Wilfrid Parsons; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953) 383, 385–86.

Jesus, it should be good enough for anybody else. Hermas thinks of a bigger-scale preaching to the dead, involving “apostles and teachers” who not only preached but baptized. Some (like Ignatius) appear to restrict the message to pre-Christian saints; some (like Hermas) might make such a restriction, but might mean that any dead person who heard and repented could be saved—the position Clement of Alexandria argues. [No Depth to which He Will Not Sink] Let us then admit that a Christian author writing in the late first century could have meant any of the four options under discussion, and that his audience, being unable to ask him follow-up questions, could have understood him to mean any of the four. The last part of the sentence sets up a contrast between parallel events: krithøsi, “judged,” corresponds to zøsi, “live”; sarki, “in the flesh,” corresponds to pneumati, “in the spirit”; and kata anthrøpous, “according to human standards,” corresponds to kata theon, “according to God.” This should remind readers of the same kind of contrast in 3:18: Christ was “put to death in/by the flesh, but made alive in/by the Spirit,” where the “flesh” part has to do with his crucifixion and the “Spirit” part with his resurrection by the Spirit or in the realm of the Spirit. But although “live according to God by the Spirit” makes sense as a reference to the evangelized dead living, by the Spirit’s activity, in the resurrection, “judged according to human standards” is not likely to refer to their death. In the first place “judged” is an odd word to use if 1 Peter means “died,” and “died . . . in the flesh” is redundant. So “judged” must have its normal sense: the dead had been evaluated according to

200

1 Peter 4

human standards while they were alive, but now are being given the chance to live by the Spirit according to God’s standards. This contrast works best with the “recently dead believers” option above—although they were slandered while they were alive, God Christ’s Descent into Hades among Early Believers Ignatius (writing c. 110–117), in his letter To the Magnesians, urges readers not to practice a Torah-observant form of Christianity; those who do so, he says, have not truly received grace (Ign. Magn. 8:1). For the most divine prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. For this reason they were persecuted . . . . And so those who lived according to the old ways came to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living according to the Lord’s day, on which also our life arose through him and his death . . . . Through this mystery we came to believe, and for this reason we endure, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher. How then are we able to live apart from him? Even the prophets who were his disciples in the spirit awaited him as their teacher. And for this reason, the one they righteously expected raised them from the dead when he arrived. (Ign. Magn. 8:1–9:2)

Note that 1 Peter also connects Christ to the prophets through the Spirit (1:10-11); note also that Ignatius isn’t arguing that these dead who heard Christ were not repenting, but being rewarded for their faith with resurrection. But, believing that Christ is “the door through which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets and the apostles and the church enter” (Ign. Phil. 9:1), and that Acts 2:31 meant that Jesus went to the realm of the dead, Ignatius presumed that Christ’s mission was to raise these righteous dead to life. The Shepherd of Hermas (100–150) includes a brief reference to how apostles and teachers who preached the name of the son of God, when they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the son of God, preached also to those who had already fallen asleep [that is, the dead apostles and teachers preached to those who preceded them in death], and they [the apostles and teachers] gave them the seal of the preaching [Hermas probably means baptism]. . . . through these people, then, they [the previously-dead] were made alive and learned the name of the son of God. (Herm. Sim. 93 [9.16]. 5-7)

The Odes of Solomon (late first to early second century AD) speak often and figuratively about the descent of Christ to free those imprisoned: “I shattered the bars of iron . . . and nothing appeared closed to me, because I was the opening of everything. And I went toward all my bondsmen in order to loose them” (Odes Sol. 17.10-12). Ode 42 appears to reflect on Christ’s descent to Hades: Sheol saw me and was shattered, and Death ejected me and many with me. . . . and I made a congregation of living among his dead, and I spoke with them by living lips; in order that my word may not fail. And those who had died ran toward me; and they cried out and said, “Son of God, have pity on us. And deal with us according to your kindness, and bring us out from the chains of darkness. And open for us the door by which we may go forth to you, for we perceive that our death does not approach you.” (Odes Sol. 42:11-17)

The Gospel of Peter (100–150), in the dramatic scene where the risen Jesus is brought out of the tomb with the cross following him, includes a voice from heaven asking, “‘Have you preached to those who sleep?’ And from the cross there was heard the answer, ‘Yes’” (Gos. Pet. 38–42). Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, complains that Jews have removed some passages from the Septuagint because they predict Jesus. Trypho asks him to give some examples. Justin cites a verse from Jeremiah that he claims to be a prediction of Jesus, and then says, “Similarly have they removed the following words from the writings of the same Jeremias: ‘The Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, remembered his dead that slept in their graves, and he descended to preach to them his salvation’” (Justin, Dial. 72). Irenaeus cites the same otherwise unknown text (Adv. Haer. 3.20), attributing it to Isaiah (Reicke, 16–17). Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. 3:19 and its Context (Kobenhaven: E. Munksgaard, 1946).

1 Peter 4

201

now provides them with the promise of life in the No Depth to which He Will Not Sink “He descended into Hell,” the Creed resurrection—and with the “righteous dead” says, and “If I make my bed in Sheol, option, where those like the prophets, who also thou art there,” the Psalmist (139:8). It seems suffered while alive, are given the chance to experi- there is no depth to which he will not sink. ence the good news after their deaths. Maybe not even Old Scratch will be able to Either option fits the context, and both can be hold out against him forever. located in early Christianity—the “recently dead Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 38. believers” in 1 Thessalonians and the “righteous dead” in the texts noted in [Christ’s Descent into Hades among Early Believers]. Because there is no other mention anywhere in 1 Peter about the letter recipient’s worries over loved ones who had departed, and since 1 Peter does in 1:10-11 connect the prophets to the Spirit of Christ, I lean toward the “righteous dead” as the most likely guess for what 1 Peter meant. But to repeat myself, it seems likely that his readers could have understood him to mean any of the four options noted above. [The Descent into Hell Elaborated] How to Behave in the Time Remaining, 4:7-11 “The end of all things has drawn near; be self-controlled and sober for prayers, above all things having strenuous love for each other, because love hides a multitude of sins, [being] hospitable towards each other without grumbling, each one just as he received a gift, ministering to each other as good stewards of the manifold gift of God. If someone speaks, as the words of God. If someone ministers, as from the strength which God provides, so that in all things The Descent into Hell Elaborated Justin Martyr, who lived in Rome around 150, speaks of a document called the Acts of Pilate (Justin, 1 Apol. 1.35, 1.48). The text Justin speaks of was probably expanded and elaborated into the 5th–6thcentury version that exists now. It includes an account of Christ’s descent into hell, which many think was originally a separate story, and may go back to the late second or early third century. The account is supposedly given by three men whom Jesus raised during his descent. “We were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world,” they begin. “And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun, and it shone and lit us all, and we saw one another. And immediately our father Abraham, together with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled with joy, and they said to one another, ‘This light comes from a great illumination.’”

John the Baptist then comes to announce Jesus’ arrival in Hades, and says to the dead, “Therefore I say to you all that when you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshipped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At any other time this is impossible.” There is then a worried conversation between Satan and the personified Hades. When Jesus arrives, “the gates of brass were broken in pieces and the bars of iron were crushed and all the dead who were bound were loosed from their chains, and we with them. And the King of Glory entered as a man, and all the dark places of Hades were illuminated.” Jesus binds Hades and Satan, and then raises Adam, “the patriarchs and the prophets and martyrs and forefathers, and he took them and sprang up out of Hades.” “Christ’s Descent into Hell,” from Acts of Pilate, in J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 185–90.

202

1 Peter 4

God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power unto the ages of ages, Amen.” Verse 7 restates Jesus’ message according to Mark 1:15: “The time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God has drawn near”; “has drawn near” is the same word in both verses. Many parts of the New Testament indicate a belief that “has drawn near” meant that the end, the kingdom, would arrive soon: • Mark 13:30: Truly I say to you that this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things come to pass. • John 21:23: So the saying spread among the brethren that [the Beloved Disciple] would not die [until Jesus returned]. • 1 Thess 4:15: For this I tell you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, the ones who are left until the Lord’s return, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. Mark’s Gospel tries hard to contain the expectation of Jesus’ near return without squashing it: “the end is not yet”; “this is only the beginning”; “only the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Matthew and Luke, writing fifteen to thirty years after Mark, try to make even plainer that the end might not be next Tuesday: • Matthew 24:14: This gospel of the kingdom must be preached in the whole inhabited world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come. • Luke 21:24: Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Second Peter urges his readers to interpret God’s delay in sending Jesus as patience, and reminds them that with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8-9). But 1 Peter has none of these worries. Like John the Revelator, who also wrote near the end of the first century, 1 Peter anticipates the end coming soon, and believes it has come near. Unlike the Revelator, 1 Peter has no interest in apocalyptic narrative or in revealing how Satan’s power underlies Rome’s government. Instead, 1 Peter wants to focus on what Christians should be up to as the end gets closer. [The End Is Near]

First: Pray! That should come as no surprise. What might be slightly unexpected, however, is that 1 Peter’s imperative is not

1 Peter 4

203

“pray!” but “Be self-controlled and stay sober!” The End Is Near These are the end times. And so we Having criticized the “Gentiles” for drinking too should feel shame and stand in fear of much just a few verses before (4:3), he may God’s patience, that it not turn into our judgment. mean “sober” literally, or he may mean it more For we should either fear the wrath that is metaphorically, “stay focused,” as a parallel to coming or love the gracious gift that is already “be self-controlled.” “For your prayers” reminds here—one or the other, so long as we acquire us that 1 Peter’s objection to the drinking and true life by being found in Christ Jesus. partying was linked to how those celebrations Ign. Eph. 11:1. honored other gods in “unseemly idolatries.” In order to pray whole-heartedly to God, one must approach God with an undivided heart, an uncompromised loyalty. [Praying to God with an Undivided Heart]

Praying to God with an Undivided Heart

Second: Love! Back in 1:22, 1 Peter comThe beneficent Father, compassionate in manded his readers “love one another every way, has pity on those who stand in awe of him; gently and kindly does he bestow strenuously”; “having strenuous love for each his gracious gifts on those who approach him other” restates the imperative as a further qualiwith a pure resolve. And so, we should not be of fication of what it means to be self-controlled two minds . . . . May this Scripture be far and sober. The author wants the Asian believers removed from us that says: “How miserable are those who are of two minds, who doubt in their to absent themselves from much of the ordinary soul . . . .” religious practices of their former lives—the fes1 Clem. 23:1-3. tivals, the parties, the celebrations honoring other gods; that is “be self-controlled and sober for your prayers,” since Christianity demands complete commitment to the one true God. Disconnecting from the religious practices that suffused their society would leave the readers lonely—unless they simultaneously strengthened their attachments to other Love Is the End Christians. As at 1:22, this love is “strenuous” None of these things escapes your notice because it requires effort. [Love Is the End] To live if you completely adhere to the faith and like a resident alien in their own cities and villove that are in Jesus Christ. This is the beginning lages takes a lot of courage and emotional and end of life: faith is the beginning, love is the end. And the two together in unity are God; all energy. The readers will need to act in ways that other things that lead to nobility of character their blood relatives and networks of friends follow. interpret as “hatred of humanity,” and will Ign., Eph. 14:1. instead need to act like family toward people with whom they otherwise might not even associate. [No Logic to Love] The author offers a reason for practicing this sort of tough love: agap∑ kalyptei pl∑thos hamartiøn, “love hides a multitude of sins.” First Peter is apparently quoting Proverbs 10:12, but his wording is not close to the Septuagint: “Hate increases (lit., raises) strife, but love (philia) hides (kalyptei) all who are not quarrelsome” (LXX

204

1 Peter 4

Prov 10:12). James 5:20 also has “he will hide (kalypsei) a multitude of sins,” and 1 Clement 49:5 has the phrase exactly as 1 Peter has it, so perhaps (a) one or more is repeating an early Christian (or Jewish) interpretation or restatement of Proverbs 10:12 that was popular in the early Christian community;31 and/or (b) one or more is drawing that form of the proverb from one of the others—for instance, maybe 1 Clement drew on 1 Peter.32 As James uses it, Anne Enright, The Gathering (New York: Black Cat, 2007) 28. the proverb commends those who work hard to return backsliders to the straight and narrow; if you do and are successful, you have “saved [your brother’s] soul from death and hidden a multitude of sins.” First Clement, writing to the Corinthian church, is trying to get them to admit that they sinned by deposing their church leaders. He brings up love both to say that God’s love for us is so magnificent that we should do everything required of us—including repenting of ousting the elders—and to point out that love between 1 Clement’s Use of “Love Hides a Christians includes no factions or schisms. [1 Clement’s No Logic to Love And what amazes me as I hit the motorway is not the fact that everyone loses someone, but that everyone loves someone. It seems like such a massive waste of energy—and we all do it, all the people beetling along between the white lines, merging, converging, overtaking. We each love someone, even though they will die. And we keep loving them, even when they are not there to love any more. And there is no logic or use to any of this, that I can see.

Multitude of Sins” The one who experiences love in Christ should do what Christ commanded. Who can explain the bond of God’s love? . . . Love binds us to God; love hides a multitude of sins; love bears all things and endures all things. There is nothing vulgar in love, nothing haughty. Love has no schism, love creates no faction, love does all things in harmony. Everyone chosen by God has been perfected in love; apart from love nothing is pleasing to God. 1 Clem. 49:1-5.

Use of “Love Hides a Multitude of Sins”]

Since he has just written of one Christian’s love for another, by “love hides” it seems unlikely that 1 Peter would mean that God’s love or Christ’s love covers our sins—possible, but less plausible, since the change in reference would happen without any preparation. By “hide,” the author might mean “forgive” or “suppress” or both—strenuous love between fellow believers will not only forgive mistakes but will also prevent things like deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander from taking root between believers. [2 Clement’s Use of “Love Hides a Multitude of Sins”]33 Verse 9 begins with a plural adjective, “hospitable ones,” the subject of a verb that the reader is to supply. One could supply an imperative—“be hospitable”—or a participle—“being hospitable”—without changing the intended meaning.34 Like the strenuous love 1 Peter commends, early Christian hospitality meant a serious commitment to care for one another. There were traveling teachers, missionaries, and prophets to host; there were ordinary believers who may have moved because of persecution or because it

1 Peter 4

205

was simply easier to start over in a new 2 Clement’s Use of “Love Hides a Multitude of Sins” So then, brothers, since we have received no trivial place after giving up one’s ancestral opportunity to repent, we should turn back to the faith. For poor believers, and especially God who called us, while there is still time . . . . But you for Christian slaves, providing this sort know that the day of judgment is already coming like a of hospitality would not have been blazing furnace . . . and then the hidden and secret works effortless, and yet the author wants that people have done will be made visible. Giving to charity, them to do it without complaint. Jobes therefore, is good as a repentance from sin. Fasting is better than prayer, but giving to charity is better than both. Love points out that being hospitable prob- covers a multitude of sins, and a prayer from a good conably also includes providing space for science will rescue a person from death. worship services, food for the common 2 Clem. 16:1-4. meal, and wine and bread for the Eucharist. Again, for the poor who struggled to feed themselves, or for slaves or for wives of nonbelievers, this may have been hard. And for any of the original recipients, becoming a host for a housechurch probably marked one as a Christian more decisively than simply attending services in someone else’s home.35 [The Rule of St. Benedict on Hospitality]

The call for hospitality occurs in many places in the New Testament: Romans 12:13, “Share in the needs of the saints, pursue hospitality”; Hebrews 31:2, “Do not neglect hospitality”; Panel from Third-century Christian Sarcophagus

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Christian funeral banquet. Relief from an early Christian sarcophagus with strigils and inscription: FOR BAEBIA HERMOPHILE- from Via Tiburtina, Rome. AD 3d C. Museo Nazionale Romano (Palazzo Massimo alle Terme), Rome, Italy. (Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY)

Early Christians often shared wine and bread, as in this depiction of Christians banqueting together in honor of one of their members who has died.

206

1 Peter 4

1 Timothy 3:2, “A bishop must be . . . hospitable” (so also Titus 1:8). First Clement praises the Corinthians, “For who has ever visited you . . . and not proclaimed the magnificent character of your hospitality?” (1 Clem. 1:2; he also praises Abraham, All guests are to be received as Christ Lot, and Rahab for theirs). Most famously, the himself; for he himself said, “I was a Didache (written in the late first or early second stranger and ye took me in.” And to all, century) tried to address abuses of hospitality while fitting honor shall be shown; but, most of all, to servants of the faith and to pilgrims still upholding the idea that any follower of Jesus . . . . Chiefly in the reception of the poor should be able to find food and shelter with any other and of pilgrims shall care be most anxbeliever. [Didache and Limits on Hospitality] While limits like iously shown: for in them Christ is received the more. “no more than three nights” may seem picky or arbitrary, consider how the same rules obligate small From section 53, in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Christian house-churches to figure out how to house Press, 1977) 124–25. and feed drop-in guests for a night or two without dissent. That is impressive. Verses 10-11, picking up on the idea of hospitality, address the readers as “good stewards,” the employees or slaves who managed households for the wealthy. Each believer has been entrusted with gifts (charismata), which are “manifold”; 1 Peter, like Paul, believes that the gifts are of different sorts, although they all come from God. Each believer is then to use these gifts in ministry to other believers. The image of steward suggests that each believer is to

The Rule of St. Benedict on Hospitality The Rule, dating from the 6th century AD, became the basis of conduct in all monastic orders.

Didache and Limits on Hospitality The first quote below gives rules for hospitality for those who claim the Spirit’s authority for what they preach and teach. The community must be careful not to offend the Spirit, but there are limits on what a prophet might claim in the name of the Spirit. The second paragraph gives rules for hospitality for ordinary Christian travelers or immigrants. Notice that any Christian gets food and shelter, but nobody gets money, and nobody gets unlimited support unless they will work. Concerning apostles and prophets: Act according to the gospel’s decree. Let every apostle and prophet who comes to you be welcomed as the Lord, but he should not stay longer than a day, or if he has a need, another day. If he stays three, he is a false prophet. And when an apostle leaves, let him take nothing except bread enough to get him to the next place to lodge him; if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. You may not test a prophet who is speaking in the Spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. But not everybody who speaks in

the Spirit is a prophet, but only if he has the marks of the Lord . . . . Every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit should not eat of it; if he does, he’s a false prophet. Every prophet who teaches the truth but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet . . . . Do not listen to anyone who says, in the Spirit, “Give me money (or something else)”; but if he says to give it to someone in need, let no one judge him. (Did. 11:3-12) Let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be welcomed. Then once you have tested him, you will know him, because you have the understanding of right and wrong. If a transient comes, help him as much as you are able, but he should not stay more than two or three days, if he has need. If he wants to stay permanently, and he is a skilled worker, then let him work and let him eat. If he has no trade, decide according to your understanding how he can live with you as a Christian without being idle; if he doesn’t want to do this, he is a Christ-peddler. Stay away from that sort. (Did. 12:1-5)

1 Peter 4

207

think of himself or herself as using his or her gifts to manage God’s household, or to provide different aspects of that management. First Peter mentions only two, speaking (lalein) and ministering (diakonein), leaving us to guess whether he thinks of these as two examples of specific gifts or as categories within which other gifts could be named.36 “Speaking” could include preaching, teaching, encouraging—all the sorts of verbal communication that happen between believers. Whoever does this—and almost every believer does—should think of his or her words as the logia theou, the very words of God. “Ministering,” meaning to act as a servant, would include providing hospitality as well as activities common among early Christians that 1 Peter probably presumes but never names: giving to the poor, caring for the sick, comforting the bereaved, visiting the imprisoned. Whoever does these things—and almost every believer does—should do so “from the strength which God provides.”37 This is another acknowledgment by 1 Peter that ministry of this sort is not always a piece of cake, and that it will take God’s strength to carry out. [Leave Me Alone!] The passage ends with a lovely benediction. As the end approaches, believers should stay self-controlled and sober for their prayers, should love one another strenuously, Leave Me Alone! A story about hospitality that I treasure comes should practice ungrudging hospitality, and from a writing workshop that I used to teach should use all the gifts God provided in every summer at a monastery. . . . One year on the ministry to each other. All this is to be done, second day of class a shy, soft-spoken student told the says the author, so that glory—praise, fame, group that she had gone to the abbey visitor center to ask some more questions [about monastic life]. But reputation, status—will accrue not to the the monk had been short with her, saying, finally, “I believers who practice these disciplines, but don’t have time for this; we’re trying to run a to God through Christ. Anyone in their monastery here!” . . . the monk, a man recently protime, Christian, Jewish, or pagan, would fessed, soon tracked her down and apologized profusely. All in all, it was a useful exchange. The guest have understood that ultimately praise and discovered that monks are human; and the monk came honor belong to God or the gods, and that to his senses regarding Benedict’s Rule on the recephumans must be careful to show due respect. tion of guests. . . . Benedict knew that hospitality But this is a letter to Christians, members of would be life-saving for both monk and guest. I believe that he wanted Benedictine men and women to be so a tiny religious minority within the broad deeply grounded in hospitality that it would color religious landscape of the empire. everything they do and say. Everywhere they went there were things said, Kathleen Norris, Amazing Grace (New York: Riverhead, 1998) 266–67. carved, and minted to give honor to the gods. Their lives and efforts must make clear that honor goes to God through Christ, to whom all honor and power belongs, age upon age. What an ambitious hope for these people!

208

1 Peter 4 Unperplexed by Fire, 4:12-19

Structure “Beloved” begins a new section, as it does at 2:11, and it extends through the “amen” in 5:11. Within the larger unit of 4:12–5:11, there are three smaller sections. • 4:12-19 offers another approach to the issue of undeserved suffering. The author has already connected suffering to Christ’s passion (2:18-25) and to Christ’s resurrection and ascension (3:18-22); now he will connect suffering to the nearness of the end, which he stated in 4:7. • 5:1-5 is a section on church leadership, addressed to elders and youths, raising the question (addressed in the comments on that section) about the identity of the latter group. • 5:6-11 are a collection of exhortations similar to the ones that sometimes appear at the ends of Paul’s letters. Fire Is for Testing—Rejoice Now and Later! 4:12-13 “Beloved, don’t be surprised by the burning going on among you for your testing, as if something strange were happening to you, but rejoice to the degree that you are sharing in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may also rejoice when you celebrate in the revelation of his glory.” The verb for “surprised” (xenizø) also appears in 4:4, where 1 Peter notes that the readers’ neighbors may be surprised when the readers no longer attend festivals and parties. “Something strange” (xenou) comes from the same root, and using the two together is a way to emphasize that for Christians, suffering is not odd; hard times should not surprise Christians or create any perplexity.38 “Burning” is a literal translation of pyrøsis. It is used to describe Babylon’s burning (Rev 18:9, 18) and the fire that purifies silver and gold (LXX Prov 27:21), and so can signify a punishment or a cleansing. Likewise, the word translated “testing” (peirasmos) can also mean a temptation to evil or God’s testing, meant to strengthen faith. Putting both together—“the burning going on among you for your testing”—is an elegant way to show how confusing undeserved or unexplained suffering can be. Think of Job, harassed by those who tell him he must have done something wrong, suggesting and then demanding that God appear and explain why his world has collapsed. First Peter’s construction in

1 Peter 4

209

Don’t Be Surprised by Testing this first verse, then, manages both to convey The trials and temptations which come to why suffering is confusing—because it can be Christians are nothing new. The prophets interpreted either as God’s testing or as God’s of the Old Testament suffered exactly the same punishment—and to exhort his readers not to things. All such trials find their meaning and culmination in the cross of Christ. The servant is not be confused. [Don’t Be Surprised by Testing] greater than his master. If Christ suffered, how Anyone in 1 Peter’s audience who had read the can we expect to get off any more lightly? Old Testament would not be perplexed by the Hilary of Arles, Introductory Commentary on 1 Peter, cited in Gerald Bray, ed., James (ACCS 11; Downers Grove IL: idea that God’s people might suffer. Besides Job, InterVarsity, 2000) 118. there were Daniel and his friends, harassed and persecuted for their faith, tossed into a burning furnace and a den of lions. There were the Israelites in Egypt, forced to make bricks without straw, and even after their deliverance, compelled to struggle through the desert before they could make it to the promised land. Elijah, a man who could pray the fire down and the dead up, was still compelled to hide in a cave and eat bread and water. God promises to stand with everyone who signs on, but one good look at the heroes and heroines of the Bible would convince you that suffering was often a part of the employment package. F. W. Beare suggested that the word “burning” was used in order to connect what these readers were going through with what the Roman Christians went through under Nero:39

But all the endeavors of men, all the emperor’s largesse and the propitiations of the gods, did not suffice to allay the scandal or banish the belief that the fire had been ordered. And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians . . . . Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; and then on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of hatred of the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight had failed. (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44)

Others doubt this, arguing that since 1 Peter never speaks specifically of any kind of persecution worse than slander, the author is unlikely to have the martyrdoms under Nero in mind.40 But I believe that the allusion may have been intended, and even if it was not, 1 Peter’s readers, who accepted the letter as truly from the mar-

210

1 Peter 4

Where Are You Going? One of the famous legends found in the Acts of Peter (second half of the second century) is the Quo Vadis (Where are you going?) story. In it, Peter, preaching in Rome in the days of Nero, is about to be arrested, and some of his supporters hear of it and urge him to leave. But Peter said to them, “Shall we act like deserters, brethren?” And they said, “No, but by going you can still serve the Lord.” He obeyed the brethren, and went away alone, saying, “Let none of you go with me, I will go alone

in disguise.” When he went out of the gate he saw the Lord come into Rome. And when he saw him he said, “Lord, where are you going?” And the Lord said to him, “I go to Rome to be crucified.” And Peter said to him, “Lord, are you being crucified again?” And he said, “Yes, Peter, again I shall be crucified.” And Peter came to himself; and he saw the Lord ascending to heaven. Then he returned to Rome, rejoicing and praising the Lord because he had said, “I am being crucified.” This was to happen to Peter. Acts Pet. 35; in J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 424.

tyred apostle, would almost certainly have thought of the persecution Peter had witnessed and then endured.41 Such an allusion, intentional or not, would have enhanced the authority of the letter, with readers thinking, “when Peter uses the word ‘burning,’ he knows whereof he speaks.” [Where Are You Going?] Do not be surprised, be happy? The imperative “rejoice” in v. 13 recalls the author’s statements that the readers are rejoicing (1:6) despite having to suffer briefly. There it was clearer that the readers rejoiced not because they had to suffer but Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the because they knew they had an inheritance Appian Way kept by God, ready to be revealed in the last time (1:5). Here the author comes closer to asking them to rejoice because they suffer, but he still does not quite say that; they are to rejoice “to the degree that” (katho) they are sharing in Christ’s sufferings. [Donne on Affliction] “The sufferings of Christ” could mean “the Image Not Available sufferings of the Messiah,” or what New due to lack of digital rights. Testament scholars often call “the Messianic Please view the published woes.”42 A large collection of texts, both commentary or perform an Internet Christian and Jewish, speak of a time just search using the credit below. before the end, when things get worse than they ever have been before. For instance,

Annibale Carracci (1560–1609). Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way. 1601–1602. Oil on wood, National Gallery, London, Great Britain. (Credit: ©National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY)

• LXX Daniel 12:1: And at that time, Michael the great angel, who takes his stand for the sons of your people, will come; that time will be a day of tribulation such as has never happened until that day

1 Peter 4

• 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10: That day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed . . . the coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing . . . . • Mark 13:7-8: Whenever you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; these must happen, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and empire against empire; there will be earthquakes in various spots, there will be famines; these are the beginning of woes. • 2 Esdras 13:29-31: The days are coming when the Most High will deliver those who are on the earth. And bewilderment of mind shall come over those who inhabit the earth. They shall plan to make war against one another, city against city, place against place, people against people, and kingdom against kingdom.

211

Donne on Affliction . . . affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another’s danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security. (“Meditation XVII,” 109) [God] had kindled some sparks of this faith in thee, before thou askedst that new heart; else the prayer had not been of faith; but now finding thee obsequious to his beginnings, he fuels this fire, and purifies thee, as Gold and Silver, in all his furnaces; through Believing and Doing, and suffering, through faith, and works, and tribulation, we come to this pureness of heart. And truly, he that lacks but the last, but Tribulation (as fain as we would be without it) lacks one concoction, one refining of this heart. John Donne, “Meditation XVII,” in Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959) 109. Donne, “A Sermon Preached at Paul’s Cross to the Lords of the Council,” www.lib.byu.edu/dlib/donee

First Peter shares the primitive Christian expectation that the end had drawn near (4:7), and so probably also expects to be entering a tribulation period—another reason why suffering should not be unexpected. But “sharing in the sufferings of Christ,” given all that 1 Peter had already said about imitating Christ’s Passion, probably got the readers thinking about Jesus on the cross more than about the “wars and rumors of wars” period. “Rejoice . . . so that you may rejoice” probably does not mean that being happy in suffering is required to be able to join in the celebration when the roll is called up yonder. What is required is that the readers not give up their faith as a result of suffering, so that they may rejoice in the revelation of their salvation.43 “Rejoice” is offered as a strategy for thinking about suffering and making sense of it. Since suffering means that you are sharing in

212

1 Peter 4

Rejoicing in Suffering I bless you for making me worthy of this day and hour, that I may receive a share among the number of the martyrs in the cup of your Christ, unto the resurrection of eternal life in both soul and body in the immortality of the Spirit. Mart. Pol. 14.2.

Christ’s experience, it also means that you are staying close to Christ and will be rewarded in the future. [Rejoicing in Suffering] Chances were that 1 Peter’s readers had heard this sort of thing before. In the introduction I argued that late first-/early second-century Christians in Asia Minor likely had heard one or more Gospels and Paul’s letters read aloud. • Matthew 5:11-12: Blessed are you whenever they insult you and persecute you and say all sorts of evil things against you on my account; rejoice and celebrate [same two verbs as 1 Peter], because your word is great in the heavens. (par. Luke 6:22-23) • John 16:20: Truly truly I say to you that you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will be grieved, but your grief will become joy. • Romans 12:12: Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation. • Philippians 1:17-18: . . . supposing to increase the tribulation in my imprisonment. So what? Just that in every place, whether for false or true motives, Christ is being proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. By taking the same line as Paul and the Gospels, the writer of 1 Peter places himself firmly in the mainstream of early Christian opinion about how to deal with suffering. Suffering as a Christian, 4:14-16 “If you are insulted in the name of Christ, you are blessed, because ‘the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.’ For let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or evil-doer or as an embezzler[?]; but if [one of you suffers] as a Christian, don’t be shamed by it, but glorify God in this name.” Verse 14 is the second beatitude in 1 Peter; the first, at 3:14, shares with this one the “if ” form: • 3:14: but if you might also suffer for the sake of righteousness, blessed! • 4:14: if you are insulted in the name of Christ, blessed [you are] .... In 3:14, “suffer” is in the optative mood, making it something that might or might not happen; in this sort of conditional sentence,

1 Peter 4

213

one would normally expect the second half, the “then” clause, also to be hypothetical—if you happen to suffer, then you would be blessed. But since there is no verb in the second part, you can understand it to be a wish (“may you be blessed!”) or a factual statement (“you are blessed”) or a more hypothetical statement (“under those conditions, you would be blessed”). The sentence in 4:14 is a bit more straightforward. “Insulted” is in the indicative mood, and in this letter, with so many references to insults and slander, it is clear (as most commentators point out) that the “if ” essentially means “when” or “since.”44 “Blessed” is then not likely to have been a wish, but a statement, especially since it is followed by a clause giving the reason for saying that the readers are blessed. The verb for “insult” is the same used in the beatitude in Matthew 5:11-12, quoted earlier—not enough contact to think that 1 Peter is copying from Matthew, but enough to suspect that the author, and perhaps the audience, knows that form of the Jesus saying.45 “In the name of Christ” means the same thing as “as a Christian” in v. 16—the letter’s recipients, 1 Peter knows, have certainly been slandered and almost certainly vilified simply for being Christians. [Hatred of the Name of “Christian”] What I mean is this: all Christians everywhere would have shared in the shame attached to the kinds of things many non-Christians were saying about Christians at the end of the first century: “a class hated for their abominations,” “a most pernicious superstition,” “a depraved and Hatred of the Name of “Christian” extravagant superstition,” etc. What 1 Peter This, then, is the first grievance we lodge cannot know—and what accounts for his conagainst you, the injustice of the hatred tinual use of “if ” statements about suffering—is you have for the name of Christian. (Tertullian, Apol. 1.4) whether any specific reader of his letter has suffered personally for his or her faith. Refer back One thing only is what they wait for: the confesto the section “Evidence for Persecution of sion of the name of Christian, not an investigation Christians at the End of the First Century” in of the charge. (Tertullian, Apol. 2.3) the introduction—some Christians in the late Finally, why do you read from your indictment that first/early second century were killed for their so-and-so is a Christian? Why not also that he is a faith, while others were allowed to practice murderer, if the Christian is a murderer? Why not theirs, seemingly with little interference. Some adulterer also, or whatever else you believe us to be? In our regard alone is it a cause of shame and of the readers may have had their neighbors or annoyance to report us with the specification of former business associates or even family our crimes? If the term “Christian” involves in members call them names, especially if the itself no element of guilt, it is extremely ridiculous readers have been obvious about not particithat the charge is of one name only. (Tertullian, Apol. 2.20) pating in the commonly expected religious rites

214

1 Peter 4

of their city. Pliny described those who refused to sacrifice to the image of Trajan as guilty of “pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy,” and executed them; one can imagine a father screaming worse than that at a son or daughter who refused to honor Abused for Being Christian the ancestral gods and justified their behavior by In the mid-second-century text The appealing to a crucified Jew. [Abused for Being Martyrdom of Polycarp, the elderly bishop refuses to save his life by cursing Christ or by swearing by Caesar’s fortune. He finally tells the proconsul that he will never give in, and invites the proconsul to do what he will.

Christian]

If this sort of thing happens to them—or “since this sort of thing has happened and is likely to continue to happen”—“you are The proconsul was amazed and sent his herald blessed.” Not “happy” or “fortunate,” but into the center of the stadium to proclaim three “blessed,” meaning “God has blessed you.” times, “Polycarp has confessed himself to be a Perhaps in some cases it is appropriate to transChristian.” When the herald said this, the entire multitude . . . cried out with an uncontrollable late makarios as “happy” or “fortunate,” but not rage and a great voice, “This is the teacher of here, because the point is not that suffering is godlessness, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods, the one teaching many good luck, but that it is a sign of God’s favor, neither to sacrifice nor to worship the gods.” proof that “the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” [Blessings and Suffering] Here 1 Peter is Mart. Pol. 12:1-2. quoting again, this time from LXX Isaiah 11:23. Speaking of the messianic “shoot” that will arise from the “root of Jesse,” Isaiah writes, “The Spirit of God will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and piety. The spirit of the fear of God will fill him. He will not judge by glory (or, for glory) . . . .”46 Because of all the work done in this letter connecting Christ’s sufferings to the sufferings of the readers, 1 Peter can take a text that The Denial of Saint Peter Not only does the author of 1 Peter gain standing with the audience because of Peter’s martyrdom, but also because of Peter’s famous apostasy— when he denied knowing Christ. Readers could imagine Peter knowing both what it’s like to fail and what it takes to endure.

Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi da) (1573–1610). The Denial of Saint Peter. Oil on canvas, [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

1 Peter 4

215

Blessings and Suffering speaks of the Spirit resting on the Messiah and And so we should practice righteoustransfer it to those who bear the Messiah’s name. ness, that we might be saved in the end. It was also part of Jesus’ teachings that his folBlessed are those who obey these commandlowers should not worry about what to say when ments! Even if they suffer evil for a brief time in this world, they will reap the imperishable fruit of their time came to face the persecutors because the resurrection. And so the one who is pious the Spirit would be with them and teach them should not grieve if he should suffer for the (Matt 10:19-20; Luke 12:11-13; 21:12-15). present; a blessed time awaits him. Verse 15 returns to the idea stated earlier 2 Clem. 19:3-4. (2:14, 20) that those who do wrong and suffer for it have no “credit” with God and none but themselves to blame for their misfortunes. If the author had written, “Let none of you suffer for doing wrong,” there would need be no further discussion. But since 1 Peter listed specific crimes, one wonders why he picked these particular things to highlight. “Murderer” and “thief ” are ordinary words and are sometimes included in New Testament vice lists. Paul puts “thieves” in the list of people who will not be included in the kingdom of God, and says “and some of you were these things” (1 Cor 6:9-11). Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 include “murderers” as those excluded from the New Jerusalem. Maybe, then, these two are random examples of sins and crimes to be avoided, and 1 Peter has no impression that his Celsus on Christians Celsus wrote around 185, roughly a readers need particular caution against them. hundred years after 1 Peter, so we Since, however, these were the sorts of slanders cannot take his On the True Doctrine as proof of given out against Christians, 1 Peter wants to what was being said in the late first century. But make sure that these are never accurate descripone passage provides an interesting parallel to 1 Peter 4:15: tions of Christians. [Celsus on Christians] The next two words appear only in 1 Peter, The call to membership in the cult of Christ is this: and translators are not certain how to treat Whoever is a sinner, whoever is unwise, whoever is childish—yea, whoever is a wretch—his is the them. “Evil-doer” is a literal translation of kingdom of God. And so they invite into memberkakopoios, and if it were the last word in the ship those who by their own account are sinners: sequence, you might expect a general, allthe dishonest, thieves, burglars, poisoners, blasphemers of all descriptions, grave robbers. inclusive term to round things off. But it is followed by allotriepiskopos, which only appears Celsus, On the True Doctrine 74. in 1 Peter. It literally means “one who oversees another,” and so one guess is that it means “busybody.”47 If by “another” the author means “other people’s money,” then “embezzler” or “defrauder” might be the intended sense.48 Whatever it means, the recipients should not do it. There is an ellipsis in v. 16—some words left out that must be supplied by the reader. The text has “but if as a Christian, let him

216

1 Peter 4

not be ashamed . . .” to which the reader must supply ei tis hymøn, “if someone of you [pl.],” and then either the verb “suffers” or “is insulted,” depending on whether you pick up the verb from v. 14 or v. 16. If you suffer for no legitimate reason—murder, theft, etc.—but only for your faith and for your identification with the name of Christ, then be not shamed. Do not let them make you feel shame because of it. This is not easy to pull off, is it? In Anthony Trollope’s novel The Warden, the Reverend Harding feels compelled to resign after being unfairly and falsely accused of avarice and dereliction of duty; even when the man who started the campaign against him apologizes, his public defamation is too much to bear, and he resigns. [The Warden] First Peter’s advice “let it not shame The Warden you” amounts to giving up the sense of At this point in the novel, a crusading newspaper, The Jupiter, has published an article arguing that honor that mattered so much in GrecoMr. Hardin, Warden of Hiram’s Hospital, is grossly overpaid Roman society. Honor, in 1 Peter’s for his work, and that the income from the trust that supworld, depended on never accepting ports him should be going to help the poor rather than keep insults unanswered; only slaves and other him in luxury. creatures incapable of honor did that. The warden continued his walk; the hard and stinging words But for Christians, your Lord died the of that newspaper article, each one of which had thrust a servile death, and you are called to be his thorn as it were into his inmost soul, were fresh in his memory; he had read it more than once, word by word, and slave. Your values are not your world’s what was worse, he fancied it was as well known to every values, so do not let the slanders shame one as to himself. Was he to be looked on as the unjust griping priest he had been there described, was he to be you. Instead, “in this name” or “by this pointed at as the consumer of the bread of the poor, and to name”—the name of Christ—glorify be allowed no means of refuting such charges, of clearing God.49 This is the mountain girl, dressed his begrimed name, of standing innocent in the world, as hitherto he had stood? Was he to bear all this, to receive as in a homemade coat sewn together from usual his now hated income, and be known as one of those rags, telling her classmates that she is greedy priests who by their rapacity have brought disgrace proud of her “coat of many colors.” This on their church? And why? Why should he bear all this? (107) is the Mexican immigrant who paints the brick pillars on either side of his sidewalk As Eleanor [the warden’s daughter] read the article, her green, white, and red—yes, that is exactly face flushed with indignation, and when she had finished it, she almost feared to look up at her father. who I am and I do not intend to hide it. “Well, my dear,” said he; “what do you think of that? Is it Christians must not back down from worth while to be a warden at that price?” “Oh papa;—dear papa!” their identification with Christ and with “Mr. Bold can’t unwrite that, my dear. Mr. Bold can’t say other Christians, but give God praise as that that shan’t be read by every clergyman at Oxford; nay, Christians: “Thus it is fitting not only to by every gentleman in the land.” (155) be called Christians, but truly to be Anthony Trollope, The Warden (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1906). Christians” (Ign. Magn. 4:1).

1 Peter 4

Suffering as a Sign of the End, 4:17-19 “Because it is time for the judgment to begin from the house of God. But if first [it begins] from us, what [is] the end/conclusion of the ones disobeying the gospel of God? And ‘if the righteous one is scarcely saved, where will the wicked and sinful one appear?’ As a result, those who suffer according to God’s will should entrust their souls to a faithful Creator by good deeds.” First Peter’s audience would not have been surprised to hear that the judgment was near; if they believed “the End of all things has drawn near” (4:7), they would also believe that Judgment Day was close (cf. Jas 5:7-9: “Be patient, brothers, until the coming of the Lord . . . behold, the Judge is standing before the door”). They might not have been surprised to learn that the judgment would include them as well as unbelievers. Some parts of the New Testament (e.g., John 5:24) argue that Christians bypass the judgment because of their faith in Christ, but others picture Christians undergoing God’s scrutiny on that day: • 1 Corinthians 3:10-15: According to the grace of God given me, I—as a wise master-craftsman—laid a foundation, and others have built, but let everyone be careful how he builds . . . because the work of each will be made plain, because the Day will make it known; because it will be uncovered by fire, and the fire will demonstrate what sort of work each has done. • Romans 14:10-12: We will all stand at God’s judgment seat . . . then each of us will give an account for himself [to God] . . . . • Revelation 20:11-15: And I saw a great white throne and the one seated upon it, from whom earth and heaven fled . . . . And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, the book of life; and the dead were judged according to their works which were written in the books . . . and whoever was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. If, as we suspect, 1 Peter’s readers have heard Paul’s letters read aloud, they may remember this theme; Asian believers may also have heard Revelation. The unusual emphasis in 1 Peter is that the judgment begins first with God’s people, rather than happening to everyone at once.50 This idea may ultimately derive from earlier Jewish martyr accounts. In 2 Maccabees 6:12-17, the narrator

217

218

1 Peter 4

addresses the audience directly in an aside. Just before narrating the gripping martyr stories of Eleazar the priest, the nameless mother, and her seven sons, the narrator writes, Now I urge those who read this book not to be depressed by such calamities, but to recognize that these punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our people. In fact, it is a sign of great kindness not to let the impious alone for long, but to punish them immediately. For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins; but he does not deal in this way with us, in order that he may not take vengeance on us afterward when our sins have reached their height. Therefore he never withdraws his mercy from us. Although he disciplines us with calamities, he does not forsake his own people.

God does not delay in punishing God’s own people, in other words. But even this is not exactly the same, since the author of 2 Maccabees means God’s judgments within history, mostly God turning God’s people over to oppressors. First Peter means the final judgment has already begun, and God has chosen to discipline the good guys first. The judgment is beginning “from the house of God . . . from us.” Most take the “from” to be the equivalent of “with,”51 and insofar as this interpretation marks believers as the starting point for judgment, it is correct. But 1 Peter may mean “from” more literally. Some Old Testament texts predict that the first stage in the final judgment is God’s arrival at the temple, where its leaders are the first to be chastised and/or purified; after that, God judges the nations. Notice especially the connections with Ezekiel 9:5-6: • LXX Jeremiah 32:29-30: Because in the city where my name is named, I am beginning to do harm upon it . . . and you shall prophesy upon them these words and say, The Lord is warning from on high; from his holy place he will give his voice. • LXX Zechariah 13:7: Let the sword be raised against my shepherds and against the men of my city, says the Lord Almighty. Strike the shepherds and scatter the flocks and I will bring my hand upon the shepherds • LXX Ezekiel 9:5-6: Go after him into the city and cut down and do not let your eyes spare and have no mercy; kill elder and youth and virgin and infants and women . . . begin from my holy

1 Peter 4

219

ones [or my holy places, my sanctuaries]. And they began from the elders of the men who were inside in the house. The readers, whom the author called a “spiritual house” (or “household”) in 2:5, make up the “house” or “household” with whom God is beginning the judgment. And if this is how it is with us, how awful will it be for “those who disobey the gospel of God?”52 The connection with these prophetic texts would explain “from the house of God” in v. 17 and might even explain why the topic of “elders” and “shepherds” comes up next. One logical problem remains, however; the prophetic texts, as well as 2 Maccabees 6:12-17, presumes that the people of God are suffering deservedly for sins, whereas 1 Peter is only considering undeserved suffering. If the readers are to think of what they are going through as God’s judgment, does that not undercut the ways the author wants them to think of their sufferings as sharing in Christ’s experience? Two possibilities present themselves. First, perhaps the author’s use of “judgment” imagery for suffering is a reminder that nobody but Jesus is completely innocent, and that all the rest of us surely have some dross, some impurities in the gold of our faith, which God could rightly burn away in the fires of testing. Second, perhaps 1 Peter by “time for the judgment to begin” means the beginning stages of the end, as outlined in early Christian apocalyptic texts, which typically includes the expectation of betrayals, imprisonments, family disputes, and the experience of being universally hated (Mark 13:9-13). “Time for judgment to begin” could then include all sorts of suffering as signs of the If It’s this Hard for the Righteous impending end that were not God’s disciplinary The greater God’s saints are, the more actions against sin.53 terribly He lets them be knocked about The author quotes LXX Proverbs 11:31 to and perish. What, then, will happen to the others? . . . When the Gospel is preached, God begins to reinforce the idea that if things are this hard on punish sin, in order that He may kill and make the righteous, the wicked have no chance. [If It’s alive. He whips the pious with a foxtail, which is this Hard for the Righteous] The section concludes primarily a mother’s rod. But what will happen to with an exhortation that those who suffer those who do not believe? It is as if he were saying: If God deals so seriously with His dear “according to the will of God” will continue to children, you can figure out what kind of punishtrust in God. Here again is the troublesome ment will be inflicted on those who do not issue of whether God wills suffering itself or believe. wills the life of obedience that, in 1 Peter’s Martin Luther, Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter; Luther’s Works, vol. 50 (trans. Martin H. Bertram; St. Louis MO: world, will bring suffering. For the author’s Concordia, 1967) 130.

220

1 Peter 4

readers, the distinction was moot; living in a way that gives glory to God in Christ’s name will almost certainly have had unpleasant consequences. Do not give up doing good, he says. For some of his readers, this may have meant continuing to do charitable activities—visiting the sick and prisoners, e.g.—that publicly identified the do-gooder as a Christian. For others, like the slaves and the wives of unbelievers, “doing good” may have had a smaller scope. For slaves, “doing good” meant suffering patiently without sinning, as Jesus did; for wives, it meant (in 1 Peter’s terms) quietly subjecting themselves to their husbands and letting their Christian virtues speak for themselves.

CONNECTIONS Preachers or Bible teachers taking up 4:1-6 may feel led to preach against sins of excess: the time is past for revels and wild parties, and you should start thinking about how you will account for your licentious behavior when you stand before God on Judgment Day. If that is your leaning, you will get no complaints from me—even church people need a good dose of brimstone from time to time, and each generation at some point decides that standards have slipped, the young folks are running amok, and that we need to get serious about our faith again: That God hath a controversy with his New-England people is undeniable, the Lord having writ his displeasure in dismal Characters against us . . . . There is great and visible Decay of the power of Godliness amongst many Professors [not college Professors, but those who have publicly identified themselves as Elect Christians] in these Churches. It may be feared that there is in too many spiritual and heart Apostasy from God . . . . There is much Intemperance. That heathenish and idolatrous Practice of Health-drinking is too infrequent . . . . And there are other heinous breaches of the seventh Commandment. Temptations thereto are become too common, viz. such as immodest Apparel, Laying out of Hair, Borders, naked Necks and Arms, or which is more abominable, naked Breasts, and mixed Dancings, light Behavior and Expressions, sinful Company keeping with light and vain Persons . . . .54

1 Peter 4

While one could make these kinds of interpretive moves from 1 Peter 4:1-6, I have argued in the commentary that 1 Peter’s point is slightly different. The short vice list in v. 3 perhaps has its focus on actions the audience may have considered normal, even civicminded, behavior: annual festivals to honor the ancestors, celebrations of the emperor’s accession, annual guild and club banquets, etc., all involved libations, prayers, and/or sacrifices to the gods. To get at what 1 Peter is proscribing, we should think about what activities or commitments are promoted by our society as normal, traditional, even patriotic, and then ask ourselves whether these have the effect of dividing our loyalty to God. Ancient believers like Augustine, who strongly objected to the idea that Christ would offer the gospel to the dead, tended to interpret “even to the dead” in v. 6 as the spiritually dead—those who in 4:3 are characterized by licentiousness, drunkenness, etc. If that is the correct reading (which I personally doubt), then 4:1-6 should certainly urge the church not to turn its back on “the Gentiles,” but to follow their Lord’s example in giving them an opportunity to hear the word: God has such great concern, such great love, such great desire that we be put to death in the body but quickened in the spirit, that he has commanded us to preach the Gospel, the word of faith, to those who are implicated in greater crimes and justifiably must be accounted among the dead.55

Those who understand “even to the dead” to mean that Christ preached to the actual dead in Hades take it to be a measure of God’s grace. Clement of Alexandria, noting that all Christians believe God sent Christ to deliver the gospel to the world so that they might not be condemned unjustly, reasons, “how is it then conceivable that [Christ] did not for the same reason preach the Gospel to those who had died before his advent? . . . we must believe that God’s will, being disciplinary and beneficent, saves those who turn to him.”56 Those in the first camp often object to the second interpretation because it seems to undercut the seriousness of gospel preaching. If salvation is offered after death to those who have never heard, said Augustine, shouldn’t we stop evangelizing, since the post-mortem preaching is bound to be so much more effective? Of course, 1 Peter does not comment on how many of the dead responded in

221

222

1 Peter 4

faith to what they heard; 4:6 only reports on the preaching, not the results. But even supposing large numbers of the departed converted, how does that harm me? We have turned to Christ not only for the promise of heaven, but so that we may spend the remainder of our lives in fellowship with him and the rest of his followers. We preach Christ because Christ has transformed our lives, and we would hope the same for others. If God wants to offer that chance to the dead, then that is God’s grace and God’s prerogative. In 4:7-11, 1 Peter exhorts the readers to take their commitments to each other seriously: their responsibility to pray, not only for themselves but for the community and the world; their responsibility to love and to provide hospitality; their responsibility to use the gifts God has given them for others’ good. These are not new ideas to us; we know we should do these things, but the pressures of time and our fears of how others might react inhibit us. Hospitality is made up of hard work undertaken under risky conditions, and without structures and commitments for welcoming strangers, fear crowds out what needs to be done. Hospitable places where guests can disclose the gifts they bear come into being only when people take up this practice and become wise, by experience, in doing it well.57

Hospitality to each other—care groups, friendship circles, childcare co-ops, etc.—gives us the chance to practice loving each other and developing our gifts. Hospitality provided to strangers—a Sunday school class’s commitment to volunteer at a homeless shelter, or a church’s provision of food and shelter—gives the additional benefit of opening us up to the stranger’s gifts: “Work for the homeless . . . frequently begins with the thought that a privileged person can help someone in need. Often, however, the ostensible hosts discover that they have received from the homeless at least as much as they have given.”58 The final section of this chapter suggests that we can look at our suffering as partnership with Christ in suffering and as the beginning of God’s judgment on the world. The two emphases pull in opposite directions. If we suffer as Christ did, then it is for doing good: “reviled for the name of Christ,” for doing nothing more blameworthy than obeying God’s Son. Yet if our suffering is the initial segment of Judgment Day, then is God punishing us in

1 Peter 4

advance, as it were, to purify us? How can suffering be both undeserved and disciplinary? As noted in the commentary, the answer may be that none of us is as blame-free as we would like to be or as we imagine ourselves to be. We may not be drunkards or adulterers or thieves, but it would be hard to grow up in our culture and be free from the grip of materialism, greed, gluttony, and the other besetting sins of the wealthy. We may not have directly oppressed others, but we may well have held back from ministry to those who really could have used our help. If judgment began with us, would that really be unjust? Another possibility is that “the time for judgment to begin” (4:17) refers to the period of persecution predicted in texts such as Mark 13:9-13, Matthew 24:9-14, Luke 21:12-19, and 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5. Those who bear Christ’s name will suffer innocently and as one moment in the great drama of God’s judgment enacted on the world. If this happens, says 1 Peter, rejoice, since you have the chance to imitate Christ. Luther put it this way: Christ’s cross does not save me. To be sure, I must believe in his cross, but I must bear my own cross. I must put his suffering into my heart. Then I have the true treasure. St. Peter’s bones are sacred. But what does that help you? You and your own bones must become sacred. And this happens when you suffer for Christ’s sake.59

Notes 1. Celsus, On the True Doctrine (trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann; New York: Oxford, 1987) 53. Hoffmann’s book is a helpful but necessarily speculative reconstruction of Celsus’s work, which only survives in Origen’s quotations. 2. Celsus, On the True Doctrine 122. 3. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 301, takes the next unit to be 4:12–5:11, as do Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 147; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 309–13; Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) 284; and John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 767–70. 4. Ernest Best, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1971) 151–52; Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: MacMillan, 1952) 208.

223

224

1 Peter 4 5. Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter (trans. Peter H. Davids; Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) 212–13; William Joseph Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965) 244–48. 6. Jobes, 1 Peter, 264–65; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 279–80; Elliott, 1 Peter, 717. 7. Elliott, 1 Peter, 720. 8. Jobes, 1 Peter, 268. 9. T. Jud. 23:1-2 associates aselgeia with “revolting gentile affairs.” 10. BAGD, 141. 11. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 282–83; Goppelt, Commentary, 285. 12. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 282. 13. “Anacharsis to the Tyrant Hipparchus,” in Abraham J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBL Sources for Biblical Study 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977) 40–41. 14. BAGD, 24. 15. Jobes, 1 Peter, 269. 16. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 283. 17. Green, 1 Peter, 137–38. 18. Green, 1 Peter, 119. Goppelt, Commentary, 276, 287, translates it as a separate clause: “and they blaspheme.” Jobes, 1 Peter, 261, does also, although she understands it to mean slander rather than blasphemy. 19. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 275, 284. 20. On a milestone near Cordoba, Spain, dated ad 35/36; cited in Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2.155. 21. Statius, Silvae 5.2.170: “But who is this messenger from Trajan Alba’s lofty hills, where close at hand our god here present looks out upon the walls of his Rome?” (Citations of Statius from the Loeb edition, trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey [Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003].) 22. Statius, Silvae 4.2.14. Statius is reflecting on the experience of dining with Domitian: “Do I behold you as I recline, sovereign of the lands (regnator terrarium), great parent of a world subdued (orbisque subacti magne parens), you, hope of mankind (spes hominum) . . . .” 23. Martial, Ep. 2.91: Rerum certa salus, terrarum gloria, Caesar: “Caesar, the world’s sure salvation, glory of the earth”; Ep. 8.66: Rerum prima salus et una Caesar: “Caesar, the world’s first and only salvation.” (Citations of Martial from the Loeb edition, trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey [Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1993].) 24. Tacitus, Ann. 1.7.3; Pliny, Ep. 10.51; the quote is from a papyrus fragment from Egypt dated AD 37, cited in Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 2.86. 25. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 286. I agree with Jobes, 1 Peter, 270, that 1 Peter is likely to have meant God, since Jesus in this passage is the model for believers—suffering now but entrusting himself to the righteous Judge who would make things right. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 266, argues for a baptismal background for the passage that would make it more likely for Christ to be the judge. 26. So Augustine, Letter 164, “To Evodius.”

1 Peter 4 27. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 288; Elliott, 1 Peter, 733; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 265. 28. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 270–71; Elliott, 1 Peter, 733–34; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 288–91. 29. Jobes, 1 Peter, 270–73. 30. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971) 150–51, 164–65. 31. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 295; Goppelt, Commentary, 297. 32. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 278–79. 33. Goppelt, Commentary, 298–99; Jobes, 1 Peter, 278–80. 34. Elliott, 1 Peter, 751, argues for the imperative; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 296, argues for a participle. 35. Jobes, 1 Peter, 280–81. 36. Most prefer to think of these as two simple categories, speaking and doing: Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 298; Best, 1 Peter, 160; Elliott, 1 Peter, 758; Goppelt, Commentary, 302. 37. Goppelt, Commentary, 304–305. 38. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 305, argues persuasively that the issue is not shock but “perplexity arising from an ongoing problem.” 39. E.g., F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958) 190. 40. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 305–306; Elliott, 1 Peter, 772. 41. So also Boring, 1 Peter, 156. 42. Elliott, 1 Peter, 775; Green, 1 Peter, 154. 43. Elliott, 1 Peter, 777. 44. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 307; Elliott, 1 Peter, 778. 45. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 308; Green, 1 Peter, 156–57; Goppelt, Commentary, 322, thinks there is a clear link to Jesus’ beatitude, though not necessarily to Matthew. 46. Jobes, 1 Peter, 288; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 308–309; Boring, 1 Peter, 157–58; Green, 1 Peter, 151–52. 47. So NRSV; Jobes, 1 Peter, 289; Elliott, 1 Peter, 785–86. 48. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 311–13; BAGD, 47, suggests “a concealer of stolen goods.” 49. Boring, 1 Peter, 158. 50. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 315. Achtemeier suggests the parallel to 2 Macc 6:12-16. 51. So Elliott, 1 Peter, 798; Goppelt, Commentary, 329. 52. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 315–16; Elliott, 1 Peter, 798–800, disagrees with Achtemeier that Ezek 9 has any connection with 1 Pet 4:17, but agrees that this is about the beginning of the judgment. 53. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 290–95. 54. “The Necessity of Reformation, with the Expedients Subservient Thereunto,” in H. Shelton Smith et al., eds., American Christianity (2 vols; New York: Scribners, 1960) 1.205–16.

225

226

1 Peter 4 55. Bede the Venerable, The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles (trans. David Hurst; Kalamazoo MI: Cistercian, 1985) 109. 56. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6. 57. Ana Maria Pineda, “Hospitality,” in Dorothy C. Bass, ed., Practicing Our Faith (San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 1997) 35. 58. Ibid., 34. 59. Martin Luther, Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter, vol. 30 of Luther’s Works (trans. Martin H. Bertram; St. Louis MO: Concordia, 1967) 129.

Closing Advice from Peter the Elder 1 Peter 5

COMMENTARY Tend My Sheep, 5:1-5

Structure One could make a case for extending this section through v. 7, since v. 6 begins “humble yourself ” or “be humbled,” which extends the advice given to the “youths” in v. 5. But just as 5:1 begins with a “therefore,” so does 5:6; the division also separates the discussion about and advice to church leadership from a section of short exhortations that appears to be directed to everyone. As always, so long as we recognize that these kinds of divisions are artificial and keep reminding ourselves of what came before and what comes after, they are helpful for giving us manageable chunks of text to think about. As One Elder to Others, 5:1-4 “I, therefore, a fellow-elder and witness of Christ’s sufferings and a sharer of the soon-to-be-revealed glory, urge the elders among you: shepherd the flock of God among you, acting as overseer1 not by compulsion but willingly, according to God; not greedily but freely; not as those ruling over their portions, but as those who become examples for the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading, glorious crown.” For the first time since 2:11, the author uses the first-person parakalø, which means the author is asking but with some force behind the request—so “beg” or “exhort” or “strongly encourage,” depending on our construction of the situation. You know what I mean—you get a memo at work “encouraging” you to contribute to the United Way, something you might have done anyway, but now you wonder if you will be in trouble if you opt out. On the one

228

1 Peter 5

hand, “fellow-elder” does not sound like 1 Peter is trying to pull rank; he does not say “chief-elder” or even “apostle”; on the other, “I beg/exhort/strongly encourage” is followed up not by an infinitive as at 2:11 (“I beg you . . . to abstain”) but by an imperative: “shepherd!” (5:2). The additions of “witness of Christ’s sufferings” and “sharer of . . . glory” also seem to be intended to add force to the exhortation rather than to soften it. Thus “urge” or even “earnestly urge”2 seems about right. So why not “apostle”? Paul was not reticent about using that title in his letters, although in situations where he was trying to repair or strengthen friendships (e.g., 1 Thessalonians, Philippians), he either omitted the title from the address or called himself “slave.” First Peter included “apostle” in the opening (1:1), but at this point avoids it, perhaps to imply that his authority for urging them about pastoral duties stems from the experience he shares with his readers rather than his unique position as apostle. To Philemon, Paul writes, “Therefore, although in Christ I have The Shepherd’s Authority boldness enough to command you to do what is Often when the soul [of the pastor] is necessary, I instead parakalø you on account of inflated because of the authority it holds love—this one, Old Man Paul, now also a prisover the laity, it becomes corrupted and moved to pride by the allure of power. In truth, one controls oner of Jesus Christ—I parakalø you . . .” (Phlm this power well if he knows how both to temper 8-10). First Peter is not being as obvious about and to assert it. . . . But we will more fully underit, but the rhetorical stratagem is the same: do stand this power of discernment if we study the not quite exercise all the authority you have, but example of the first shepherd. For Peter, who by God’s authorization held the position of leadership remind your readers that you could. So 1 Peter in the holy Church, refused immoderate veneradoes not write “apostle” to make the exhortation tion from Cornelius . . . but Peter recognized him into an outright command, but does write as an equal, saying: “Arise, do not do this, for I am martys, “witness” or “martyr,” making this more also a man.” But when he discovered the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, he immediately showed than just a request from one friend to another. the extent of the power he had over others . . . . He had a self-awareness that he was the head of the Church in the battle against sin, but he did not acknowledge this honor when he was in the presence of upright brethren.

[The Shepherd’s Authority]

Readers at the end of the first century and beginning of the second would know the widely held tradition that Peter died a martyr’s death. Gregory the Great, The Book of Pastoral Rule II.6 (trans. George They also would have known, from having E. Demacopoulos; Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, heard one or more Gospels read in worship, the 2007) 63–64. traditions of Jesus’ death and Peter’s connection to it. While 1 Corinthians 15:5 (“He appeared to Cephas”) and Luke 24:34 (“The Lord has truly been raised, and has appeared to Simon”) are a witness to the pride of place Peter had as a witness to the resurrection, all four Gospel accounts record him denying that

1 Peter 5

229

Celsus on the Failure of the Apostles he knew Jesus, and Mark, Matthew, and John Your case is made the harder because are pretty clear that Peter was not around as not even his disciples believed in him at Jesus died. [Celsus on the Failure of the Apostles] Luke the time of his humiliation: those who had heard 23:49, “But all those who knew him were him preach and were taught by him, when they saw he was headlong for trouble, did not stick standing far off . . . watching these things,” may with him. They were neither willing to die for his be intended to make Peter and the rest of the sake nor to become martyrs for his cause—they eleven actual witnesses to Jesus’ death. Either even denied they had known him! “witness of the sufferings of Christ” rests on Celsus, On the True Doctrine 66. something like Luke’s version of the Passion account; or “witness” means “one who testifies” instead of “one who watched”;3 or (as I think most likely) the phrase reaches back to 4:13, “rejoice to the degree that you share (koinøneite) in the sufferings of Christ.”4 First Peter claims to be a martys of Christ’s sufferings and a koinønos in Christ’s soon-to-be-revealed glory. By the end of the first century, no Christian would have disputed that, based on the belief that he had died for his Lord: “Peter, who on account of unjust jealousy not just once or twice but many times bore up under hardships and thus having borne witness [martyr∑sas] was taken to the well-deserved place of glory” (1 Clem. 5:4). “Elders among you” refers to leaders in the congregations the author hopes to reach with his letter. Evidence from the New Testament and from other late first-/early second-century texts shows us that congregations used various names for their leaders and assigned them varied sorts of responsibilities. A few examples will show some of the diversity within early Christianity on this topic:

• Paul addressed Philippians “to the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi with the bishops (episkopois) and deacons (diakonois).” The Didache, dating to the late first/early second century, speaks of apostles and prophets who travel between congregations and of prophets and teachers who stick with a single congregation. The congregation owes the first group their respectful attention and a couple, or at most three, night’s lodging, but no money. The second group should be supported, however. There are also “bishops and deacons” who “also conduct the ministry of prophets and teachers among you” (Did. 15:1, unless these are alternate names for the same group). But 1 Timothy 3:1-7 addresses the qualifications of the bishop, singular, and 3:8-13, the qualifications

230

1 Peter 5

of deacons, plural. Ignatius’s letters, written around 115 or so, take for granted that there is one bishop and multiple deacons in every congregation, and argue for giving more authority to the bishop. • First Timothy 5:1, 17-22 gives directions about elders (presbyterois), implying that at least some of them teach and preach, that they are supported by the congregation, and that they exercise authority over the congregation. Titus 1:5-9 directs the recipient to “set up elders town by town,” but then uses the term “bishop” apparently to describe the same set of responsibilities. Since Titus uses “elder” and “bishop” interchangeably, and since the set of qualifications for this elder/bishop office is mostly identical to what is set out for the bishop in 1 Timothy 3, it is possible that the terms are interchangeable in 1 Timothy also. This appears to be the case with 1 Clement, written within a few years of 1 Peter. That author considers that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons (43:4-5), who have been succeeded in turn by others whom he calls “bishop” (44:4) and “elder” (44:5; 57:1) without distinction. • Matthew 23:8-11 presents an argument for having no title greater than “deacon” (diakonos, servant) and for rejecting any titles like “rabbi,” “father,” or “instructor.” Luke-Acts, on the other hand, presents a multi-layered set of leaders: the apostles, who must be twelve, drawn from those who were with Jesus from the beginning; the seven, chosen by the whole church, who are supposed to take care of the distribution of food but who also act as church-starters; prophets, male and female, who exist in various congregations; teachers, who also seem to be local-church leaders; and elders, who exist alongside apostles in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22) and whom Paul and Barnabas appoint in every church (Acts 14:23). • Revelation was addressed to Christian congregations in seven cities in Asia, and was likely written within a few years of 1 Peter. It imagines twenty-four “elders” seated on thrones in heaven, probably representative of the whole people of God. Yet in the seven letters of chapters 2–3, where the author addresses issues including leadership problems, the author does not mention elders, but notes that the Ephesian church had to deal with false apostles (2:2) while the Thyatiran church has at least one female prophet within it (2:20) who is far too liberal in her views for the Revelator. The upshot of all this is that there was probably no uniform pattern of church leadership when 1 Peter was written. So when

1 Peter 5

231

the author addressed “elders among you,” we simply cannot know if that means a council of leaders within each house-church or a council made up of leaders from each house-church who have some authority over the individual congregations. We cannot even assume any sort of trans-congregational organization, so that “council” may be too strong a word; perhaps the elders of congregations acted completely independently of each other. Likewise, when 1 Peter urges the elders, “Shepherd the flock of God among you [pl.],” he could have meant that each elder has a flock (see the discussion below on “portions”) or that they are to exercise care and authority collectively. Quite possibly 1 Peter was deliberately choosing to make his instructions broadly applicable to any form of leadership rather than arguing, as does Ignatius, for a particular way of assigning authority. “Fellow-elder” is not a title, but part of the author’s argument— he, like they, has been called to care for God’s flock. Since “shepherd” is used by several Old Testament Shepherd Images among Philosophers prophets to represent the leaders of Israel (LXX Anacharsis to Tereus: “No good ruler Isa 63:11; Jer 2:8; Ezek 34:2-23; Zech 11:3-17), ruins his subjects, nor does a good shepthe author could simply have been taking up herd harm his sheep.” (in Malherbe, 45) this ancient image of leadership with all its rich Diogenes to Metrocles: “It is not only bread, connotations: David the shepherd who became water, a bed of straw, and a coarse cloak that king; “the Lord is my shepherd”; God’s feeding teach moderation and patience, but also, if one the flock and gathering the lambs as an image may speak in this way, the hand of the shepherd. (in Malherbe, 175) for the return from the exile (Isa 40:11); etc. “Shepherd” was also a Greco-Roman image of Abraham J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBL Sources for good leadership. [Shepherd Images among Philosophers] Biblical Study 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977). But if the author or any in the audience had ever heard John 21 read aloud, or if they knew the traditions on which John 21 was based, they could not have failed to make the connection: Jesus appointed Peter to tend the sheep, the Chief Shepherd commissioning his reluctant witness, restoring him after his miserable failure, and implying that Peter would this time faithfully render service until, no longer a youth, he would stretch out his hands in death (John 21:18). Here is how to shepherd God’s flock: • Acting as overseer not by compulsion but willingly, according to God—The elder must provide leadership in the form of oversight. The verb episkopeø was used in ordinary Greek to mean “supervise,”

232

1 Peter 5

Saint Peter Consecrating Saint Asprenus as First Bishop of Naples

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Domenico Morelli (1816–1901). Saint Peter Consecrating Saint Asprenus as First Bishop of Naples. Pinacoteca, Vatican Museums, Vatican State. (Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY)

First Peter writes as one elder to other elders. In time, however, Peter was understood to be the first bishop of Rome, whose consecration of other bishops was an important step in the development of the leadership of the church.

especially of a person who watches over something, like a shrine or a certain set of civic or cultic responsibilities. Elders should administer as well as minister, in other words, willingly and not by compulsion. That could mean 1 Peter does not think well of a congregation dragooning someone into the responsibility;5 after all, it is a serious job, and in 1 Peter’s day, being an identifiable leader probably increased the likelihood that one would suffer for faithful service. But “willingly, according to God” might also mean that 1 Peter expects those who have been marked for leadership by God should then respond willingly and not act like the call of God is a huge burden. • Not greedily but freely—“Greedily” translates aischrokerdøs, which makes an adverb out of “shameful profit.” Don’t shepherd the flock in a shameful-profit manner: we know what he means, don’t we? It was an ancient problem, the person who “served” congregations for the money. The adjectival form of this word is a disqualifier for bishops in 1 Timothy 3:8 and for elders/bishops in

1 Peter 5

233

Titus 1:7, and Didache, while advocating for generously providing for ministers, nevertheless flatly says, “Anyone who says in the Spirit, ‘Give me money (or something else)’—don’t listen to him!” (Did. 11:12). So, you elders, don’t be like that, but shepherd the flock prothymos, “willingly, eagerly, freely.”6 The contrast does not seem to mean “gratis”—do your work for nothing—but more the motivation behind it—don’t do your work primarily for the money. Polycarp’s letter to the Philadelphians references an elder named Valens who apparently had been deposed over money issues. Polycarp urges his readers “to abstain from love of money and to be pure and truthful” (Pol. Phil. 11:1).7 Ruling • Not as those ruling over their portions, but as The word translated ruling is those who become examples for the flock— katakyrieuontes, from a verb that can “Portion” (kl∑ros) means a share of something, mean “lording it over.” That’s the word Jesus like a part of an inheritance. It can also mean chooses in Luke 22:25 to describe how the world’s kings rule. “The kings of the nations rule the “lot”—the stick or pebble or whatever it was them [or “lord it over them”] and those who exerthat, shaken out of a jar, indicated God’s choice cise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ in a difficult decision. Possibly 1 Peter means Not so for you: let the greatest among you be like that each elder has a “portion” of the flock to the youngest, and the leader like the servant [lit., the diakonos, the deacon]” (Luke 22:25-26). oversee, and over which they should not act like 7 a ruler. [Ruling] It is also possible that “portions” is meant to be parallel to “flock,” and simply means that God has assigned all the elders to care for the whole flock.9 “Examples” is the word “type,” which means the pattern on which later examples are fashioned (like the flood is the type for baptism, its antitype, 3:21). If Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, and the elders imitate him, then they in turn set the pattern for the whole flock. Sheep and Shepherds In this arrangement, the sheep learn to be shepherds Where the shepherd is, there you should follow as sheep. (Ignatius, by imitation. [Sheep and Shepherds] Trallians 2:1)

The whole set of contrasts works against the typical In the last few years she’d come close to values of 1 Peter’s day, as well as the values of our defining all the nameless ambition that had pushed her this far: to avoid the sheep life own culture. In Greco-Roman culture, one might at all costs. (Abraham Verghese, Cutting for campaign hard for a position of great responsibility Stone [New York: Knopf, 2009] 50) that carried no salary or stipend—for instance, the overseer of a temple or the person responsible for the public market in a city. People did that with the expectation that they would invest chunks of their own money into some large project— renovating and decorating the temple, repaving the marketplace, or adding a new section of covered walkways. But there was always something to get out of it: fame and reputation, favors

234

1 Peter 5

done for favors owed, a chance to rise on the ladder of success.10 But 1 Peter’s ideal elder would not want power for its own sake or in order to Image Not Available make money, and instead due to lack of digital rights. would be a willing leader Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet who would lead by search using the credit below. example. Verse 4 closes out the advice to the elders with a promise: do your job this way, and “when the Chief The Good Shepherd (detail). AD 4th–5th C. Early Christian mosaic. Basilica Patriarcale, Aquileia, Shepherd appears, you will Italy. (Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY) receive the unfading, glorious crown.” Crowns were given to winners of athletic contests and as military awards for extreme bravery, as we now give medals. “Unfading” is amarantinon, “amaranthine,” so named because the Greeks admired the long-lasting flowers of the amaranth.11 [Is Not This the Land of Beulah?] “Glorious” is actually “of Is Not This the Land of Beulah? glory”—the phrase might be “unfading crown of I am dwelling on the mountain glory,” but either way it means a crown that symbolWhere the golden sunlight gleams O’er a land whose wondrous beauty izes the “soon-to-be-revealed glory” of the kingdom Far exceeds my fondest dreams; that Christ will fully inaugurate at his coming (5:1). The Good Shepherd

Where the air is pure, ethereal, Laden with the breath of flow’rs, They are blooming by the fountain, ’Neath the amaranthine bow’rs. Is not this the land of Beulah? Blessed, blessed land of light? Where the flowers bloom forever, And the sun is always bright.

I am drinking at the fountain, Where I ever would abide; For I’ve tasted life’s pure river, And my soul is satisfied. There’s no thirsting for life’s pleasures, Nor adorning, rich and gay, For I’ve found a richer treasure, One that fadeth not away. William Hunter, c. 1884.

[Early Christian Use of Crown Images]

As an Elder to the Young People, 5:5 “Likewise, young folks, be subject to the elders. Everybody clothe yourself with a humble frame of mind towards each other, because ‘God displaces the proud but gives grace to the humble.’” The list of qualities for the elders makes clear that they exercise some kind of authority over the congregations. However, the neøteroi, “young ones,” are given advice that should apply to everyone: be humble, subject yourselves to the elders. Thus while this could be an unusual word for “deacons” or some other form of leadership under the direction of the elders, it seems more likely that 1 Peter means “young folks” to include everyone who is not an

1 Peter 5 Early Christian Use of Crown Images Paul uses the phrase “joy and crown” twice (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19) to describe a Christian congregation as his reward for faithful service. He also uses “crown” as a symbol for eternal life (2 Cor 9:25). In 2 Tim 4:8, the “crown of righteousness” will be awarded by Christ to “Paul” on Judgment Day. Here, “of righteousness” probably means “as a reward reserved for the righteous; the reward itself, symbolized by the crown, is probably intended to be eternal life in the presence of Christ. (Kelly, 209–10) Jas 1:12 promises the “crown of life” for those who endure temptation/persecution; here, the crown probably is symbolic of eternal life. Revelation uses crowns constantly: as a promised reward of life for staying faithful until death (Rev 2:10, “crown of life”; so 3:11); as a sign of authority and/or

235

eternal life for the righteous who are already in heaven (4:4, 10; 12:1); as a sign of earthly authority granted by God, even when used for destructive purposes (6:2; 9:7; 14:14); as a sign of evil authority originating from Satan (12:3, using a different word for “crown”; 13:1). 2 Clem. 7:1-6 and 20:1-4, like James, use “crown” to stand for eternal life, and urge the readers to keep competing, as in an athletic contest, so that they will win the crown promised them at the end. Ign. Magn. 13:1 compares the council of elders in the church to a “spiritual crown worthily woven.” Mart. Pol. 17:1, 19:2 use “imperishable crown” or “crown of immortality” to mean the eternal life promised to the noble martyr Polycarp. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1960).

elder.12 This might be a semiplayful move—if your leaders are called “elders,” then everyone else is “young’uns,” no matter what their age. [Youths Need Humility] It might, on the other hand, indicate that the author assumes that most of the older and more experienced members of the congregations to whom he is writing exercise some authority; in small, house-based or Youths Need Humility apartment-based cell groups, the leadership Certain old men said, “If thou seest a young man ascending by his own will up to heaven circle that made decisions for the rest might catch him by the foot and throw him down upon include all or almost all the adults. [“Youths”] earth, for it is not expedient for him.” (The Sayings of Note that “elder” and “younger” are mascuthe Fathers X.111, in Waddell, 107) line terms, but especially if they are meant Clearly I was a sign of how far the country had gone between them to include all the members of downhill: an eighteen-year-old kid with no future, the congregations, they could be meant to be sleeping in the basement with a dying dog. Bob left gender-inclusive or could have been interAir Force brochures on the breakfast table, hoping I’d preted that way. To be plain, we have no way read them and something would click. One August morning, when a postcard arrived from the University to tell whether 1 Peter thought that women saying I’d been accepted for fall quarter, he warned served as elders in some of these congregame against certain people I would find there, atheists tions, but the term would have included and lefties and the sort of men who like to put their women elders if there were any. arms around young guys . . . . “guys like you, who think you’re better than other people, have a lot of Everyone gets an exhortation to be humbleweaknesses you don’t find out about until it’s too minded toward each other. “Clothe late. I just wish you’d listen, that’s all. But you’re yourselves” derives from the name of an going to have to find out the hard way, I guess.” apron or other garment that one ties on; (Keillor, 18) some classical Greek writers use it to mean Helen Waddell, The Desert Fathers (Ann Arbor: The University of what a slave wore when working.13 As proof Michigan Press, 1957). Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegon Days (New York: Penguin, 1985). that this is indeed God’s will, 1 Peter quotes

236

1 Peter 5

“Youths” 1 Clement is a letter written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, asking the Corinthians to repent of their decision to depose their church leaders. The author characterizes the motive for the revolt as “jealousy,” and says that from this base motive “the dishonorable rose up against the honorable, those with no reputation against those with reputation, the senseless against the wise, the youths against the elders” (1 Clem. 3:3). Here “elders” is probably the name of an office, but “youths” is probably a piece of rhetoric, since it is likely that anyone with enough authority to depose an elder would himself/herself be of the age and status to be considered an elder. Later the author writes, “We should respect our leaders, honor our elders, train our youths in the curriculum of the fear of God . . .” (21:6); in this passage, “elder” and “youth” seem to be age divisions and not office titles.

Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, gives advice to deacons about their conduct (5:2), and then writes, “Likewise the youths also should be blameless in everything, before everyone taking thought for purity, keeping themselves in check from all evil . . . therefore it is necessary [for them] to abstain from all these things, being subject to the elders and deacons as to God and to Christ” (5:3). Since Polycarp includes deacons in his list of those to whom the “youths” should be subject, it is easier to see that he means “younger people” generally. 1 John 2:12-14 addresses “children,” “fathers,” and “youths.” There are plenty of opinions about this passage. “Children” usually means the whole audience in 1 John, but “fathers” and “youths” might divide the group into old folks/young folks, or into long-time converts/recent converts; or they might be Johannine-speak for leadership roles like elders and deacons.

LXX Proverbs 3:34, substituting “God” for “the Lord.” The same form of the quote is found at James 4:6 and Ignatius, Ephesians 5:3, once more raising the question of whether all three early Christians were using the same variant translation of Proverbs, or whether one or more of the authors was reading one or more of the others (see the discussion at 4:8). Don’t Worry, Stay Awake, Fight the Lion (and Other Helpful Advice), 5:6-11

Structure The “so” in v. 6 (oun, “therefore,” “so then”) makes the command “humble yourselves” depend on what was just said in v. 5 about subjecting oneself to the elders, since God honors the humble but resists the proud. This section, like the ends of several of Paul’s letters, piles up exhortations: be humble, stay awake, resist the devil, and remember that your suffering has an end and that you are not the only one going through tough times. The main body of the letter concludes with a benediction (vv. 10-11) that is more an assertion than a wish, ending with the same note of confidence in the readers as at the letter’s beginning.

1 Peter 5

The Advice, 5:6-11 “So humble yourselves under God’s powerful hand, so that he may raise you at the Time, ‘casting all your worries upon him,’ because he is concerned about you. Be serious, stay awake. Your adversary the devil is walking around ‘like a roaring lion,’ looking for someone to gulp down; whom you should resist, steadfast in faith, since you know that the same sufferings are being completed by your brothers and sisters in the world. Now the God of all grace, who called you into his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, once you have suffered a little while will himself restore, support, strengthen, [and] establish [you]. To him be power for ever, Amen.” The letter we call 1 Clement was sent from Rome to Corinth close to the time 1 Peter was composed; some think 1 Clement used 1 Peter as a source, while others think the two were roughly contemporary and were probably both reading and hearing some of the same material. The Corinthian church had deposed its elders, and the author of 1 Clement thought it was a terrible thing, the result of jealousy and factionalism. He writes to try to get the church to repent and to restore their leaders, and so he talks a lot about humble-mindedness, using the same word 1 Peter does (tapeinophrosyn∑ and the cognate verb): • And so we should be humble-minded, brothers, setting aside all arrogance and conceit and foolishness and anger (13:1). • For Christ is of the humble-minded, not of those who lift themselves up over his flock. God’s majestic scepter, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with showy arrogance or haughtiness— although he could have—but with humble-mindedness (16:1-2). • Abraham . . . said, as he looked humble-mindedly upon God’s glory, “I am earth and ashes” (17:2). • Let the humble-minded not testify for himself, but allow another to testify for him; let the one who is pure in the flesh not be arrogant, since he knows that Another has provided him with self-control (38:2). These examples probably give us a reasonable idea of what 1 Peter means by his focus on humility at the end of this letter. In 3:8 he urges everyone to be humble (in addition to other virtues), which fits with the “respect everyone” emphasis of 2:11–3:7. In 5:5, “tie on humble-mindedness” so closely follows “subject your-

237

238

1 Peter 5

Humility The world humiliation can be understood in many different ways. It may be self-induced, as when someone who is starting out on the way of virtue humbles himself in repentance for the sins which he has committed. It may be what one sees in those who are closer to perfection when they voluntarily agree not to pursue their rights but to live in peace with their neighbors. And of course, it may be what we see when a person is caught up in the whirlwinds of persecution and his spirit is unbowed thanks to the power of patience. (The Venerable Bede, On 1 Peter; in Bray, 124) Mr. Podsnap was well-to-do, and stood very high in Mr. Podsnap’s opinion. Beginning with a good inheritance, he had married a good inheritance, and had thriven exceedingly in the Marine Insurance way, and was quite satisfied. He never could make out why everybody was not quite satisfied, and he felt conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satis-

fied with most things, and above all other things, with himself. . . . And as so eminently respectable a man, Mr. Podsnap was sensible of it being required of him to take Providence under his protection. Consequently he always knew exactly what Providence meant. Inferior and less respectable men might fall short of that mark, but Mr. Podsnap was always up to it. And it was very remarkable (and must have been very comfortable) that what Providence meant, was invariably what Mr. Podsnap meant. These may be said to have been the articles of a faith and school which the present chapter takes the liberty of calling, after its representative man, Podsnappery. (Dickens, 130–31) Gerald Bray, ed., James (ACCS 11; Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2000). Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend (1864–1865; repr., New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1951).

selves to the elders” that 1 Peter, like 1 Clement, may have proper respect for church leaders as his main focus. Here, in 5:6, humility is intended as a more general way of life, because what part of the Christian’s life would not be “under God’s powerful hand”? The contrast 1 Clement draws between “humble-mindedness” and things like arrogance, conceit, anger, and haughtiness is helpful for knowing how to be properly situated under God’s hand—and hopeful of being lifted up “in the Time”—at the Last Day. [Humility] James 4:6-10 makes many of the same points as this section of 1 Peter: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble

James 4:6

1 Peter 5:5

Subject yourselves therefore to God

James 4:7

1 Peter 5:6

Resist the devil

James 4:7

1 Peter 5:9

Humble yourselves before the Lord

James 4:10

1 Peter 5:6

And he will lift you up

James 4:10

1 Peter 5:6

The similarities show up the differences, however. First Peter has none of James’s “wash your hands, sinners, and cleanse your hearts, you double-minded!” By contrast, 1 Peter, while exhorting the readers to do certain things, does not suggest that they are failing to

1 Peter 5

239

Cast All Your Cares on God do them. And instead of commanding his There is a sadness that is helpful and a readers to mourn and weep, as James does, he sadness that is destructive. It is a funcinstead tells them that they should humble tion of the useful sorrow, then, to lament about themselves while (or even by) “casting all their one’s own sins as well as the ignorance of one’s neighbors, but also to avoid falling away from cares” on God. [Cast All Your Cares on God] “Casting” one’s purpose and to achieve the goal of goodis literally “to throw upon,” like a blanket over a ness. These concerns, therefore, are the signs of horse (Luke 19:35); the psalmist used it as a a sorrow that is legitimate and good. There is also vivid image of God’s care: “Cast your worries another kind of sorrow, prompted by the Enemy, which knows how to merge with the first kind. upon the Lord, and he will sustain you” (LXX For he himself imposes a sorrow, completely irraPs 54:23). Your “worries” are not the same as tional, which by some has also been called God’s “concern.” The first (merimnas) are more akedia. This spirit, therefore, must be driven off like anxieties, concern over things you cannot especially by prayer and psalmody. Life of Syncletica, cited in Hugh Feiss, Essential Monastic change or control; these are what Jesus warned Wisdom: Writings on the Contemplative Life (New York: against in the “lilies of the field” section of the HarperCollins, 1999) 13. Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:25-34). The second (melei) describes taking an interest in something; God cares for all of God’s creation, and so you can presume that God takes an interest in you. [Hopkins on Patience] Hopkins on Patience “Be serious, stay awake” translates two verbs Patience, hard thing! the hard thing but that are almost always used in the New to pray, Testament about proper behavior in light of the But bid for, Patience is! Patience who asks Wants war, wants wounds; weary his times, his end of all things.14 The first verb (n∑psate) is littasks; erally “be sober!” or even “sober up!” Here, “be To do without, take tosses, and obey. serious” or “stay focused” is more the idea. First Gerard Manley Hopkins, “Poem #45,” in Gerard Manley Peter uses the verb for “stay awake” only here, Hopkins: Poems and Prose (New York: Penguin,1953) 62. but it appears in Matthew and Mark in the Temple Sermon (Mark 13:34, 35, 37; Matt 24:42, 43; 25:13) and then in the scene in Gethsemane when Jesus has to awaken Peter, James, and John three times (Mark 14:34, 37, 38; Matt 26:38, 40, 41). Remind yourself of how it goes in Mark: Jesus takes the three with him and tells them, “stay here and stay awake [gr∑goreite]” (14:34). He goes off to pray, and “he returns and finds them sleeping and says to Peter, ‘Simon, are you sleeping? Aren’t you strong enough to stay awake [gr∑gor∑sai] for one hour? Stay awake [gr∑goreite] and pray, lest you come into temptation” (14:37-38). First Peter’s readers have heard these stories, or other versions of them, read aloud in worship. They would know that Peter failed to stay awake in the hour of temptation and would understand how easily one can fall asleep.

240

1 Peter 5

Resist Lions They used to tell of John, who was disciple to the abbot Paul, that he was of great obedience. There was in a certain place a memorial monument, and in it lived a most evil lioness. The old man, seeing her dung about the place, said to John, “Go and take away that dung.” And he said, “But what shall I do, Father, about the lioness?” And the old man smiling, said to him, “If she comes out at thee, bind her and bring her here.” So the brother set out that evening, and behold the lioness came out upon him; but he, obeying the old man’s word, made a rush at her, to take her. The lioness fled, and he following after, saying, “Wait, for my abbot told me to bind thee!” (The Saying of the Fathers, XIV.4; in Waddell, 114–15) And Thecla, having been taken from the hands of Tryphaena, was stripped and received a girdle and was

thrown into the arena. And lions and bears were let loose on her. And a fierce lioness ran up and lay down at her feet. And the multitude of women cried aloud. And a bear ran upon her, but the lioness went to meet it and tore the bear to pieces. And again a lion that had been trained to fight against men . . . ran upon her. And the lioness, encountering the lion, was killed along with it. (Acts of Paul and Thecla 33; in Elliott, 370) Jesus said: Blessed is the lion which the man eats and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats and the lion will become man. (Gos. Thom., Logion 7) Helen Waddell, The Desert Fathers (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1957). J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).

The believer must stay awake and alert, because there is a lion out there, waiting to gulp you down. [Resist Lions] The verb katapinø can be used literally (the great fish did it to Jonah, according to LXX Jonah 2:1), but it often means “destroy” or “overwhelm.”15 The devil does not want simply to tempt you to cheat on your income tax, in other words, but to ruin you; you need to take this seriously. The early church thought that some sins were dealbreakers with God—“sins unto death,” as 1 John 5:16-17 puts it—and Revelation, addressed to Christians in some of the same areas covered by 1 Peter, counts idol-worship “Seeking Whom He May Devour” and emperor-worship as sins that will get your This Phoenician ivory (9th–8th C. BC) depicts a name left out of the Lamb’s book of life. lioness eating a man. Hebrews 6:1-4 regards apostasy the same way: if you ever fell away, you could not come back. First Peter never really addresses this issue, but since the presumptive author is the prime example of someone who could deny Christ and be forgiven for it, it is hard to imagine what this author would count as an unpardonable sin. Nevertheless, temptation is real, the devil is dangerous, and so Christians must be ever alert. The good news is that you can “resist [him], steadfast in faith.” Christ already showed you From the palace of Ashumasirpal II, Nimrud, northern Iraq. how: “as a roaring lion” is a quotation from British Museum, London. (Credit: R. Vinson)

1 Peter 5

LXX Psalm 21:14, the psalm that begins, “My God, my God, pay attention to me; why have you abandoned me?” Most early Christians, having heard the Passion stories read (especially from Mark or Matthew), interpreted LXX Psalm 21 (in English Bibles, Ps 22) as predictive of Jesus. Thus—as 1 Peter has been arguing for the whole letter— Christ’s followers must imitate him, resisting Satan not through violence, but through steadfast, loyal obedience to God, entrusting themselves to the One who is able to raise them from the dead. [Draw

241

“Christ Militant”

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Near to God]

Sometimes when one suffers, it “Christ Militant” wearing the uniform of a Roman Legionnaire, a snake and a lion helps to know that others are under his feet. Byzantine mosaic. 6th C. Museo Arcivescovile, Ravenna, Italy. going through the same thing, (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) even if you cannot see them. That In this mosaic, Christ is dressed as a soldier, demonstrating his is the strategy behind the last part power. His right foot on the lion’s head and his left on the head of of v. 9, the only time in the letter the snake combine two ancient Christian images for the devil. He that 1 Peter has referred to a holds the cross and a book reading “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” worldwide community of 16 believers. Strictly speaking, Christians at this time were not all going through the exact same thing; in some places and at some times, the burdens of persecution were greater. But it was a safe bet to say that all suffer, that all must resist Satan’s temptation, that each little Draw Near to God group will be better for having considered the And now fear the Lord, my children, be effect of their conduct on others. The author of on guard against Satan and his spirits. the mid-second-century Martyrdom of Polycarp Draw near to God and to the angel who intercommends Polycarp’s example and suggests “we cedes for you, because he is the mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel. He might also become his imitators, considering shall stand in opposition to the kingdom of the not only ourselves, but our neighbors as well; for enemy. Therefore the enemy is eager to trip up all love true and confirmed wishes not only to save who call on the Lord, because he knows that on oneself but also all one’s neighbors” (Mart. Pol. that day in which Israel trusts, the enemy’s kingdom will be brought to an end. 1:2). T. Dan 6:1-3 (2d century BC).

242

1 Peter 5

This section closes with another benediction. The “God of all grace” might be “the all-gracious God” or “the God from whom all gifts come”—either way, it is a good beginning for a benediction! This God has set as your goal “his eternal glory in Christ Jesus,” meaning participation in the blessings of the end. “Once you have suffered a little while” is just two words in Greek: oligon, “little,” and pathontas, “having suffered.” The “little” could modify the participle, meaning that you have suffered only a little bit, but most think the author is making a contrast of the glorious future eternity and the therefore relatively brief present time that includes suffering. The four verbs all describe what God will do to get the readers from the present to the glorious future: God will • restore. Katartizø means to put something back in order, such as torn fishing nets (Matt 4:21). First Peter suspects that many of the readers need this after their lives and families have been torn by their enemies. • support. St∑rizø means to make something permanent, like the heavens (1 Clem. 33:3, “by his pre-eminent power he established the heavens”) or Sheol (Luke 16:26, “a great chasm has been established between us and you”). If God sets them on their foundation, the readers will not be shaken by hard times. • strengthen. Sthenoø means to make strong.17 It is a rare verb; the noun sthenos, strength, was common among classical Greek writers such as Euripides and Aeschylus.18 The noun means strength of all sorts, including moral authority, and so it was a good all-purpose word for a benediction. • establish. Themelioø means to lay the foundation of a house, or to secure something by fixing it firmly in place.19 All four verbs fit well the situation of a community harassed by outsiders and needing God’s care: put back to rights, settled back onto its foundation, fixed permanently, and made stronger than ever. All four verbs are in the future tense, making this benediction less of a request than a promise; 1 Peter is not praying for this to happen, but confirming that it will happen. Conclusion, 5:12-14

“I have briefly written this to you [and sent it] by Silvanus, whom I reckon a faithful brother, urging and bearing witness that this is the

1 Peter 5

true grace of God in which you must stand. Your chosen sister in Babylon greets you, as does my son Mark. Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you in Christ.” “Silvanus” is a Greek form of the Hebrew name Silas. Paul names him in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, and 2 Corinthians 1:19 using this same spelling. Acts 15:22, spelling the name “Silas,” identifies him as a member of the original Jerusalem church and a “leader” who was one of those appointed to take the letter from the Apostolic Council to the Gentile churches. After Paul and Barnabas separated, according to Acts, Silas became Paul’s steady partner in church planting. Thus anyone hearing Paul’s letters read aloud in church would know this name; anyone knowing the stories of Acts would also conclude that Silas/Silvanus knew Peter and Paul intimately. Contrast Romans 16:1-2 as an introduction to Phoebe, that letter’s courier; Paul gives a much fuller and more rousing testimony to her character and status. The understated “whom I reckon a faithful brother” works simply because the author can be certain that the readers have heard the name before and know his reputation, but had never met him personally.20 Older commentaries sometimes thought that “by Silvanus” meant the author of 1 Peter had dictated it to Silas, who actually composed the letter in Greek.21 More recent commentators agree that “by Silvanus” designates the letter’s courier, not the letter’s amanuensis.22 For reasons described in the introduction, I do not think the Apostle Peter composed this letter, and so therefore think it is unlikely that the Silas of Acts was its courier. Possibly the courier was named “Silvanus” but was not the famous one;23 however, I think that if this letter was carried by an actual but relatively unknown Silas/Silvanus who represented himself as the close friend and associate of Peter, he would need a stronger commendation than this one. Plus, “my son Mark” in v. 13 adds a character who was considered to be Peter’s interpreter by some secondcentury Christians. It is more plausible to me that the author expects the readers to hear “Silvanus” and think of the man who traveled with Paul and to hear “Mark” and think of the man who wrote what he could remember of Peter’s preaching. If “Peter” is a pseudonym, then so, most likely, are Silvanus and Mark. Then why put them in? If these two did not carry the letter, why include them? For the same reason that the real author of the letter

243

244

1 Peter 5

did not append his real name, namely that he calculated that Peter, Silas, and Mark carried far more weight in the Image Not Available early church than his due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published own name. The Gospels commentary or perform an Internet were anonymous at first, search using the credit below. but then they were telling the stories and repeating the words of Jesus—the narrator’s The Apostles Peter and Paul. Sepulchre of the Child Asellus. Early Christian, after AD 313. Vatican Museums, Vatican State. (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) identity did not matter so much. In a letter, In this early 4th-century sepulchre painting, Peter and Paul appear together, however, the writer’s as they often do in this period, signifying how the two early apostles were considered equally foundational for the church. persona matters tremendously. If you know the letter writer to be a fool or a hypocrite, you pay it no attention; if you do not know the writer’s name or reputation, you may still pay it no attention because you wonder what makes him think he can give you advice. Thus all but two of the New Testament letters are from identified authors. Only Hebrews and 1 John are not, and Hebrews was accepted very early because people believed Paul wrote it24 and 1 John because it sounds so much like the Fourth Gospel that people attributed it to the Beloved Disciple.25 Peter and Paul

[Pseudonymity]

Whoever wrote 5:12 did so “urging and bearing witness that this is the true grace of God in which you must stand.” “Urge” is the verb from 5:1, where Peter exhorts or strongly encourages the elders to tend God’s flock; it is a word that can mean “beg,” but was probably intended to carry more weight than a suggestion or even a heartfelt request. “Bear witness” also reaches back to 5:1, where 1 Peter self-identifies as a “witness,” a martys, of Christ’s sufferings. This verb (epimartyreø) means to attest to something—to bear witness that it is true.26 This that 1 Peter has written—an exhortation to remain true to the faith, in the face of suffering, because of the Christly character and godly purpose of that suffering—is the true grace. Is there a hint in the letter’s final exhortation of competing messages that would not be “the true grace”? If so, we can only speculate what they might be: perhaps

1 Peter 5

245

Christian messages like Revelation that, no less than 1 Peter, asked the readers to stand firm in their faith, but had none of 1 Peter’s optimism that virtuous living by Christians might convert the wicked. Or perhaps this closing exhortation is simply a reminder to do what the letter urges; do not just read it and think about it, but this is where you must take your stand. “Your chosen sister in Babylon greets you.” Because “Babylon” became the way early Christians referred to Rome, and because ancient Christian tradition has it that Peter left Palestine for Rome, most interpreters understand “Babylon” to mean Rome. In Revelation, the name is derogatory, identifying the city and the empire with the ancient enemy of God’s people. Perhaps 1 Peter Pseudonymity Ancient Jews and Christians wrote lots of gospels, letters, acts, and apocalypses under assumed names. Jewish pseudonymous writings that predate Christians include 1 Enoch, the Treatise of Shem, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (twelve separate documents, each purporting to be by one of the twelve sons of Jacob). Christians wrote gospels of Peter, Mary, Philip, Nicodemus, and Judas; acts of Peter, Paul (and Thecla), Andrew, John, and Thomas; apocalypses of Peter, Paul, and Thomas; and letters of Barnabas, Paul to the Laodiceans, Paul to Seneca, and Abgar to Jesus. Clearly, then, it was a reasonably common thing for people to do if they wanted to borrow the authority of a famous person or imaginatively construct what a saint might have said to a later time. 1 Enoch, containing visions, parables, and predictions supposedly experienced by the mysterious character from Genesis 5:21-24 who “walked with God” and “then was no more, for God took him,” was well regarded by many Jews and Christians in antiquity. Multiple fragments of 1 Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that the community there owned at least seven copies. No modern interpreter seriously imagines that the Enoch spoken of in Genesis actually wrote the book that bears his name, yet Jude 14-15 quotes 1 En. 1:9, citing it as an authoritative witness to the second coming of Jesus. Somehow our understanding of biblical authority must be able to entertain the possibility that a text could be both pseudonymous and God-given. Karen Jobes, who concludes that the apostle probably wrote 1 Peter, nevertheless says that authorship

and authority are separable issues: “any legitimate literary form of the [author’s] time must be allowed a biblical author when so moved by the Holy Spirit to adopt it” (14). Whoever wrote this epistle was moved to address the issue of suffering in so powerful and helpful a fashion that the letter was quickly regarded as apostolic; in the end, that judgment by the church makes it authoritative, not our decisions about its authorship. Jobes argues that the examples of Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians show that once Christians discovered that a work was pseudonymous, they rejected it (15). The Acts of Paul (and Thecla) contains 3 Corinthians (which may have circulated separately at some point). According to Tertullian (writing around 200), the document was composed by a presybter in Asia Minor and was a support for women being able to preach and teach. Tertullian claims that the author “was found out, and though he professed he had done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position” (Bapt. 17). Tertullian continues: “How could we believe that Paul should give a female power to teach and to baptize, when he did not allow a woman even to learn by her own right? Let them keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands at home” (Bapt. 17). Tertullian considered the document inauthentic because it was unorthodox on that point. In Col 4:16 Paul refers to a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans. There is such a letter, only twenty verses long, that reads like a blend of Philippians, Galatians, and Colossians. The Muratorian Canon (usually dated between 150–200) lists it as a forgery, but it appears in some later Latin manuscripts of the Bible, including the sixth-century Fuldensis and the ninth-century Cavensis and Ardmachanus. “Gregory the Great favored its canon-

246

1 Peter 5

icity, stating that the Church had restricted the number of Paul’s letters to create the significant number of fourteen” (Elliott, 544). One more example involving Tertullian: He begins De cultu feminarum (On the Apparel of Women) by arguing that the female custom of wearing makeup and jewelry began when the angels of Genesis 6 revealed these secrets to the women with whom they consorted. “Have sinners ever been able to show and provide anything conducive to holiness, unlawful lovers anything contributing to chastity, rebel angels anything promoting the fear of God? If, indeed, we must call what they passed on ‘teachings,’ then evil teachers must of necessity have taught evil lessons” (Cult. fem. 1.2.1). It’s a great rhetorical move—a “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument. Tertullian’s problem is that this story is found, not in the Bible, but in 1 Enoch, and “I am aware that the Book of Enoch which assigns this role to the angels is not accepted because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon” (Cult. fem. 1.3.1). But then Tertullian (who was a lawyer, after all) argues that Enoch should count as

authoritative anyway: “Since Enoch in this same book tells us of our Lord, we must not reject anything at all which really pertains to us. Do we not read that every word of Scripture useful for edification is divinely inspired? . . . To all that we may add the fact that we have a testimony to Enoch in the Epistle of Jude the Apostle” (Cult. fem. 1.3.3). We see then that even if one early believer judged a work inauthentic, another might accept it, long after one might have supposed that these issues were more or less settled. Tertullian’s principle seems to have been that if a work was orthodox and useful, it was fair game. So had some early Christians suspected that 1 Peter was not really by Peter the apostle, they might have stopped using it, but others may have reasoned that it was simply too “useful for edification” to be anything but inspired. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005). J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).

means it that way, too; recall the description of the ways of the Gentiles in 4:3-5. But 1 Peter has none of the invective of Revelation: e.g., “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations” (17:5). Perhaps the author Babylon used it as a symbol of his status as a displaced Two societies are prominent in the bibperson writing to others like himself.27 In any lical witness. There is Babylon, and there event, Christians in other parts of the empire is also Jerusalem. Babylon is the city of death, Jerusalem is the hearing this verse would likely have assumed it city of salvation; Babylon, the dominion of alienmeant Rome, since that is where they underation, babel, slavery, war, Jerusalem, the stood Peter to have gone, and especially if they community of reconciliation, sanity, freedom, had heard Revelation read aloud. [Babylon] peace; Babylon, the harlot, Jerusalem, the bride of God; Babylon, the realm of demons and foul “Your chosen sister” is an attempt to translate spirits, Jerusalem, the dwelling place in which all syneklekt∑, a feminine noun meaning someone creatures are fulfilled; Babylon, an abomination to jointly chosen with the writer. First Peter probthe Lord, Jerusalem, the holy nation; Babylon, ably means the Christian community—the doomed, Jerusalem, redeemed. collection of house-churches—in “Babylon,” or William Stringfellow, An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land (Waco TX: Word, 1973) 34. Rome. They send their greetings along with Mark. The readers are then enjoined to “greet one another with the kiss of love,” which, from all we can tell, early Christians were inclined to do with each other anyway. To see why this mattered, compare the way Paul closed 1 Thessalonians: “Greet all the brothers [and sisters] with a holy kiss. I command you in the Lord

1 Peter 5

to have this letter read to all the brothers [and sisters]” (1 Thess 5:26-27). The exhortation, then, is not just a “give everybody a hug from me,” but a closing stress on unity across house-churches. The small groups that met in homes and apartments were naturally very close, but may have needed some reminders that Christian fellowship was bigger than that. The closing benediction—the third in this letter—“peace to all of you in Christ” works equally well as the conclusion of the letter and as the content of what these believers would say to each other along with the “kiss of love.”

CONNECTIONS Robert K. Greenleaf, writing about the difference between those who lead first and those who lead by service, says that the servantfirst leader strives “to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.” That seems pretty obvious, until he expands it a bit: The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived?28

Servant leadership runs the risks of enabling laziness or irresponsibility and of promoting dependency. Greenleaf ’s tests caution us that serving a congregation is not the same as thinking or doing for them—that leads to unpleasant results, including the burnout of the servant leader. First Peter’s model of leadership is a shepherd whose care, motivated by free submission to God’s call, becomes an example to the flock—a shepherd whose sheep learn to be shepherds. For their part, the sheep, now addressed as “youths,” are to subject themselves to their leaders. Church is a voluntary organization, after all—leaders cannot lead if congregations are unwilling to follow. But the scenario is saved from mere top-down patriarchy by the exhortation that all, leaders included, are to dress themselves with true humility. Ministers and Bible teachers will know how hard this is in real life, but will also see it as an ideal worthy of our best attempts.

247

248

1 Peter 5

The final section of this letter calls us to be firm in our faith and to resist the devil, whom 1 Peter depicts as a roaring lion. Revelation, written close to 1 Peter’s composition, describes Satan as a dragon whose evil suffuses the Roman Empire. His metaphor for the Christian life is conquering, not through violent means, but by refusing to participate in the empire’s rituals. First Peter is not prepared to say that the evil lion speaks through the emperor in the way that Revelation has the priests of the imperial cult speak with the voice of the dragon (Rev 13:11); 1 Peter’s advice, remember, is that Christians show proper respect to the emperor, but no more than they show to anybody else. First Peter’s “resist the devil” does not go so far as the Revelator’s “conquer”—1 Peter’s image allows for a longer struggle and calls for repeated acts of bravery, facing up to evil in its many dimensions. What shape does the lion take in your community—racism, unfair wages, inadequate housing? What can you and your congregation do to resist?

Notes 1. The participle episkopountes is found neither in the original version of Codex Sinaiticus nor in Codex Vaticanus—these are two very ancient and reliable manuscripts, so when they agree to omit something it gives one pause. The oldest papyrus includes it, as do most manuscripts and most ancient versions. If the shorter text was original, then the insertion must have happened early in the copying process, since the longer text has both early and broad support. The shorter text has a more balanced parallelism, and may have arisen either from esthetic considerations or from the desire to keep the offices of presbyter and bishop separate. I will treat the longer text as original. 2. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005) 299. 3. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 323–24; Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 165, and Jobes, 1 Peter, 301, tend to read “witness” and “suffering” broadly enough to fit Simon Peter’s experience. He did see Jesus suffer in many different ways even if he did not witness the Savior’s death, and then he testified to it, as did the rest of the apostles. 4. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 323–24; John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 819; M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 167. 5. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 326. 6. BAGD, 870. 7. Because of this reference, Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 326–27, makes the intriguing suggestion that 1 Peter is warning the elders to be transparent in their money dealings.

1 Peter 5 8. Boring, 1 Peter, 170; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 347; Green, 1 Peter, 168. 9. Elliott, 1 Peter, 831 10. Green, 1 Peter, 166–67. 11. BAGD, 49; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 330. 12. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 331–32; Boring, 1 Peter, 172; Green, 1 Peter, 169; Goppelt, Commentary, 350–51. Elliott, 1 Peter, 838–40, makes the plausible suggestion that it means the recent converts, who need to pay especially close attention to the elders. 13. BAGD, 274; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 332–33. 14. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 340. 15. BAGD, 524; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 341. 16. Boring, 1 Peter, 176–77. 17. BAGD, 922. 18. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 1595. 19. BAGD, 449. 20. Jobes, 1 Peter, 321. 21. Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: MacMillan, 1952) 10–17, argues that Silvanus was not only the amanuensis for the letter but was likely to have had some influence over the expressions used in the letter. 22. Jobes, 1 Peter, 320–21, agrees with this statement, but then adds that while “by Silvanus” does not mean that Silvanus acted as Peter’s secretary, it also does not prove he didn’t, “and so the question of an amanuensis must be decided on other grounds.” 23. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 350-51. 24. Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 1–3. 25. Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1982) 8–13. 26. BAGD, 375. 27. So Jobes, 1 Peter, 323. 28. Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (New York: Paulist, 1977) 13–14.

249

Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Adamson, Gil. The Outlander. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. à Kempis, Thomas. The Imitation of Christ. Translated by Betty I. Knott. London: Collins, 1963. Apuleius. The Golden Ass. Translated by Robert Graves. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951. Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Bass, Dorothy C., editor. Practicing Our Faith. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. Beare, F. W. The First Epistle of Peter. Oxford: Blackwell, 1958. Bede the Venerable. The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles. Translated by David Hurst. Kalamazoo MI: Cistercian, 1985. Bell, Jr., Daniel M. “God Does Not Demand Blood.” The Christian Century 126/3 (10 February 2009): 22–26. Best, Ernest. 1 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1971. Bettenson, Henry, editor. Documents of the Christian Church. London: Oxford University Press, 1977. Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. Boring, M. Eugene. 1 Peter. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Bray, Gerald, editor. James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 11. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Bridges, Linda McKinnish. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2008. Brown, Michael Joseph. The Lord’s Prayer through North African Eyes: A Window into Early Christianity. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1983. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1970. ———. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, editors. Peter in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973. Buechner, Frederick. Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Cao, Lan. Monkey Bridge. New York: Penguin, 1998.

252

Bibliography Cartlidge, David R., and J. Keith Elliott. Art and the Christian Apocrypha. London: Routledge, 2001. Celsus. On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians. Translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Charlesworth, James H., editor. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Two volumes. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1983. Chen, Diane G. God as Father in Luke-Acts. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. Corley, Kathleen E. “1 Peter.” In Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Searching the Scriptures, Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary. New York: Crossroad, 1994. Craddock, Fred B. First and Second Peter and Jude. Louisville KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995. Dalton, William Joseph. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. Danker, Frederick William, editor. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Third edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Dickens, Charles. Our Mutual Friend. 1864–1865. Reprint, New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1951. Dillard, Annie. The Maytrees. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. ———. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Donfried, Karl P. “Peter.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 5.251–63. Donne, John. Devotions upon Emergent Occasions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959. Douglas, Lloyd C. The Big Fisherman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948. ———. The Robe. 1942. Reprint, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford, 2003. ———. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Eliot, George. Middlemarch. 1872. Reprint, New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003. Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Elliott, John H. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ———. The Elect and the Holy. Leiden: Brill, 1966. ———. 1 Peter. Anchor Bible 37B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Enright, Anne. The Gathering. New York: Black Cat, 2007. Eusebius. History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Translated by G. A. Williamson. New York: New York University Press, 1966. Fanestil, John. “Border Crossing.” The Christian Century 125/20 (7 October 2008): 22–25. Feiss, Hugh. Essential Monastic Wisdom: Writings on the Contemplative Life. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Feldmeier, Reinhard. The First Letter of Peter. Translated Peter H. Davids. Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2008.

Bibliography Fielding, Henry. Tom Jones. Edited R. P. C. Mutter. 1749. Reprint, New York: Penguin, 1966. Forster, E. M. A Room with a View. 1908. Reprint, New York: Penguin, 1978. Frost, Robert. Robert Frost’s Poems. Edited by Louis Untermeyer. New York: Pocket, 1946. Garnsey, Peter, and Richard Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on 1 Peter. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993. Green, Joel B. 1 Peter. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership. New York: Paulist, 1977. Gregory the Great. The Book of Pastoral Rule. Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2007. Harland, Philip A. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Hauerwas, Stanley, and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens. Nashville: Abingdon, 1989. Helprin, Mark. The Pacific and Other Stories. New York: Penguin, 2004. Hopkins, Gerard Manley. Gerard Manley Hopkins: Poems and Prose. New York: Penguin, 1953. Horell, David. The Epistles of Peter and Jude. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough UK: Epworth, 1998. ———. First Peter. New Testament Guides. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008. James, P. D. The Private Patient. New York: Knopf, 2008. Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2005. Jones, Lloyd. Mister Pip. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2007. Keillor, Garrison. Lake Wobegon Days. New York: Penguin, 1985. ———. We Are Still Married. New York: Penguin, 1990. Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Kiley, Mark, editor. Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. London: Routledge, 1997. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel according to John: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Lamb, Wally. I Know This Much Is True. New York: HarperCollins, 1998. Lapham, F. Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition. JSNTS 239. Sheffield UK: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Lewis, Naphtali, and Meyer Reinhold. Roman Civilization. Two volumes. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

253

254

Bibliography Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1972. Lundin, Roger, and Mark Noll. Voices from the Heart. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1987. McCabe, Herbert. God, Christ, and Us. London: Continuum, 2003. McCarthy, Cormac. All The Pretty Horses. New York: Vintage, 1993. ———. The Crossing. New York: Vintage, 1994. McCullough, Colleen. The First Man in Rome. New York: Avon, 1990. Malherbe, Abraham J. The Cynic Epistles. SBL Sources for Biblical Study. Volume 12. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977. ———. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Naipaul, V. S. A Way in the World. New York: Knopf, 1994. Norris, Kathleen. Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith. New York: Riverhead, 1998. Noy, David. Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers. London: Duckworth, 2000. O’Connor, Daniel Wm. Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Origen. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Pearson, Birger A. “Alexandria.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1.152–57. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Volume 1 of The Christian Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Pelikan, Jaroslav, and Walter A. Hansen, editors. The Catholic Epistles. Volume 1 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis MO: Concordia, 1967. Percy, Walker. The Moviegoer. New York: Knopf, 1967. ———. Signposts in a Strange Land. Edited by Patrick Samway. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1991. Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1995. ———. Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Plautus. The Rope and Other Plays. Translated by E. F. Watlington. New York: Penguin, 1964. Potter, George R., and Evelyn M. Simpson, editors. The Sermons of John Donne. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. Reddish, Mitchell G. “Martyr Christology in the Apocalypse.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 85–95. ———. Revelation. Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Reicke, Bo. The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. 3:19 and Its Context. Kobenhaven: E. Munksgaard, 1946. ———. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Anchor Bible. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Bibliography Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York: Random House, 2008. Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter. London: MacMillan, 1952. Senior, Donald P. 1 Peter. Sacra pagina 15. Collegeville MN: Liturgical, 2003. Shields, Carol. Larry’s Party. Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1997. ———. The Stone Diaries. New York: Penguin, 1993. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Stringfellow, William. An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land. Waco TX: Word, 1973. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Trollope, Anthony. The Warden. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1906. Verghese, Abraham. Cutting for Stone. New York: Knopf, 2009. Volf, Miroslav. “Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation between Church and Culture in 1 Peter.” Ex Auditu 10 (1994): 15–30. Waddell, Helen. The Desert Fathers. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1957. Warrior, Valerie M. Roman Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ———. Roman Religion: A Sourcebook. Newburyport MA: Focus, 2002. Webb, Robert L. “The Petrine Epistles: Recent Developments and Trends.” In Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne, editors. The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 2004. Wiedemann, Thomas. Greek and Roman Slavery. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. Young, Frances M. Brokenness and Blessing: Towards a Biblical Spirituality. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

255

2 Peter

Acknowledgments While it is the case that most writing is an exercise in solitude, no writing is completed in isolation. Writers have a community of support and, too, they write for an audience whose imagined presence shapes the way they frame their descriptions and arguments. Writing this commentary on 2 Peter, I keenly have been aware of my community of support. Under the leadership of President Bill Underwood, Mercer University continues its long history of demanding excellence in teaching and encouraging teachers to be active scholars and writers. I deeply appreciate Mercer and the support I have received from it for more than two decades. Richard Fallis, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Mercer from 2001–2010, made certain that faculty in the college received support and recognition for their work in and out of the classroom. I am grateful to Rich for his quiet attention to the work of the faculty he led. At the departmental level, I have benefited from the selfless support of Mrs. Nancy Stubbs, the administrative secretary for the Roberts Department of Christianity. In addition to being a superb coordinator of the daily work of the department, Nancy is willing and eager to assist any of us in the department as we extend our classroom emphases. On this writing project, Nancy was always available to help me track down books and articles, including doing the paperwork for inter-library loans and capturing electronic files of key articles. Bryan Whitfield is an assistant professor in the Roberts Department of Christianity. He is only years away from completing the Ph.D. in New Testament at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology. In the early stages of this writing project, Bryan was my go-to guy for general conversation about the current state of New Testament studies and the sometimes gossipy exchanges about sources, personalities, and goals of New Testament scholars. Each conversation was enlightening and encouraging. I am grateful to Bryan for his collegiality. Scott Nash and I have known each other since 1975 when we happened to sit next to each other in an intermediate Greek class in our

260

Acknowledgments

first semester at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. During our common years of service in the Roberts Department of Christianity, our acquaintance has matured into a fast friendship. Scott took a risk, I think, in agreeing to sign up a theologian to write the commentary on 2 Peter. I confess that I was a bit anxious about how things would work out because I know how high Scott’s standards are. Working with him was challenging as I imagined him reading my drafts. The project, however, has progressed with the result of a stronger relationship and, I hope, a finished product that will not tarnish Scott and his standards. As our project wound up, I gently was goaded to finish my work. Scott’s good humor and wry e-mails of encouragement saw me through to the end. I am deeply grateful for Scott’s friendship, collegiality, and modeling of the effective work of a teacher-scholar. Most of my writing happens in the solitude of my home study, but never isolated from home. Lucy always is close by, and often she is eager to hear about what I am working on. She indulged me on the 2 Peter project, listening patiently to my reports of word plays, quirks of style, and theological challenges. Since 1975, Lucy and I have embraced marriage and the unique friendship that marriage allows. I am grateful for her, her friendship, and our life together. Finally, I am grateful for the family of faith that has been home for Lucy and me since 1988. The First Baptist Church of Christ at Macon is an unusual Baptist church in the South. The church is unabashedly progressive, theologically and socially, but it never has developed an activist edge that could be misinterpreted by those who would want to accuse the congregation of being more concerned about causes than the gospel. Among a rich collection of Sunday school classes eager for critical study of the Bible, the Seekers Class at Macon’s FBC is a diamond in the midst of gems. For a month in the fall of 2009, the Seekers let me bounce around my ideas about 2 Peter and Jude in the context of traditional adult church school Bible study. From them I derived encouragement as I was reminded that Baptists still care about the Bible in its original context and in the context of contemporary readers. With profound gratitude and pleasure, I dedicate this work to the Seekers Class of the First Baptist Church of Christ at Macon, Georgia. Richard Francis Wilson Macon, Georgia, July 2010

Introduction to 2 Peter Second Peter has it all. For scholars eager to explore issues of authorship and provenance, the history of the canon of the New Testament, linguistic and rhetorical analyses, or matters of theological and ethical development, 2 Peter has at least a corner that promises a long visit. Parish ministers, too, have challenges when approaching 2 Peter. This short letter is filled with exhortations for those who would live a godly life and sharp cautions against being led astray by the whims of popular culture. In that respect, 2 Peter may be one of the most relevant New Testament works in the increasingly contentious and pluralistic context of the twenty-first century. Nonprofessional readers—students and all people drawn to the study of the New Testament—also may benefit from a critical reading of 2 Peter. Second Peter has something for all readers. Authorship

Few contemporary interpreters of 2 Peter take at face value the claim of 1:1 that “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” is the epistle’s author. That initial claim, along with the reference to the writer’s impending death (1:14) and an allusion to a first letter from the author (3:1), contribute to a broad consensus that the author of 2 Peter is attempting to establish credibility for the defense of the apostolic teaching that drives the letter. Such devices are consistent with the widespread practice of pseudonymity (using someone else’s name as one’s own, especially in writing) in the early centuries of Christian literature. Witherington captures the current tenor on the discussion about the authorship of 2 Peter in sweeping fashion: “[T]here is strong consensus among most scholars, even many evangelicals . . . that 2 Peter cannot have been written by Peter and certainly not by the Peter who was responsible for 1 Peter. In terms of perspective, Greek style, theological content, language, dependency upon Jude and a host of other factors, 2 Peter is said to be a clear example of New Testament text written under an assumed name (pseudepigraphon).”1

262

Introduction to 2 Peter

Unraveling the issues of the authorship of 2 Peter is complex and, finally, must conclude with a respectful question mark, even with the broad consensus in favor of pseudonymity. There is no room for dogmatism either for or against Petrine authorship, nor do easy categories identifying the motives or methods of scholars apply. In what follows, we will explore and accept the consensus against Petrine authorship. However, I will also reject Bray’s assessment that “literary considerations are still the strongest arguments for those who deny the traditional ascriptions of authorship, and those who defend them still use the historical argument that there is no compelling alternative explanations that obliges us to reject the tradition.”2 In the end, we agree with Craddock’s encouragements to read 2 Peter in light of what we know, what we wished we knew, and what we don’t know.3 What we know is that 2 Peter is a canonical text, and therefore it beckons us to read and understand it against the backdrop of the history of the church. What we wished we knew are more details about the letter, its author, and its audience. What we don’t know is whether or not our analysis will stand up against past evidence and future discoveries. In the end, however, we must proceed. Both textual and contextual evidence suggest that 2 Peter belongs “to the luxuriant crop of pseudo-Petrine literature which sprang up around the memory of the Prince of the apostles.”4 Three aspects of 2 Peter contribute to the conclusion that its author was of a generation later than the apostles. Most telling is the Pseudo-Petrine Texts reference to the death of “our ancestors” (3:4), an This is Fred Lapham’s list of apparent reference to the generation of the apostles. Pseudo-Petrine literature. Thus, the author positions himself in the post-apostolic Gospel of Peter community that is struggling to defend the hope of Acts of Peter Christ’s return in the face of the passing of the first genActs of Peter and the Twelve Apostles eration of witnesses. The Pseudo-Clementine Epistles Then there is the brief paean to “our beloved brother 1 Peter 2 Peter Paul” with a reference to “all [of ] his letters” that are Epistle of Peter to Philip equated with “other scriptures” (3:15-16). Accepting the Apocalypse of Peter traditional date of the death of Paul in AD 62 and the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter date of the death of Peter in AD 64, it is unlikely that Perhaps The Act of Peter from the before Peter’s death Paul’s letters would have been colBerlin Codex should be added. lected, and even more unlikely that Paul’s letters would have been elevated to the status of canon. [Pseudo-Petrine Fred Lapham, Peter: the Myth, the Man and the Writings (JSNTSup 239; London: Scheffield Academic Press, 2003).

Texts]

Introduction to 2 Peter

263

The more extensive textual evidence that 2 Peter is post-apostolic is its apparent dependence, selectively, upon the Epistle of Jude (see more below). The Epistle of Jude develops a sophisticated argument against false teachers in Jude’s community that relies upon apocalyptic texts such as 1 Enoch and The Testament of Moses. The author of 2 Peter edits Jude, leaving out those apocalyptic texts. Kraftchick concludes that “2 Peter refashioned Jude’s examples from 1 Enoch and The Testament of Moses because they were obscure to his audience or because they were too similar to the myths he had denied using (1:16).”5 That 2 Peter depended, in part, upon Jude works against 2 Peter being written by the apostle since Jude has been established as a late first-century document. Contextual evidence for the pseudonymity of 2 Peter rests upon at least three issues related to the formation of the canon of the New Testament. Working backwards, it is helpful to begin with Eusebius’s extrapolation found in Ecclesiastical History (c. 322) of three criteria for the early church to recognize, dispute, or regard as false available literature. He settled Eusebius’s Lists upon a trio of considerations: aposIn his history of the early church, Eusebius “lists” 6 certain New Testament writings as either “recogtolicity, orthodoxy, and endurance. nized,” “disputed,” or “spurious.” That Eusebius included 2 Peter in his list of disputed works underscores his Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have already been mensuspicions—drawn from broad obsertioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the vations of the churches throughout the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this empire—about the authenticity of the must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be epistle, both in terms of apostolic maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, authorship and orthodox content. the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the difEusebius surely was aware, too, that ferent opinions at the proper time. These, then, belong among the recognized writings (homologoumena). 2 Peter had come on the scene rather Among the disputed writings (antilegomena), which are nevlate as compared to the widely ertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and accepted works. [Eusebius’s Lists] those that are called the second and third of John, whether they More than a century, perhaps a belong to the evangelist or another person of the same name. century and a half, before Eusebius Among the spurious writings (notha) must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the compiled his lists of what may be conApocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle sidered part of a New Testament, a of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and working list of texts was compiled in besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the Rome, perhaps, around the time of accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Pius I (d. 157). The so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Muratorian Fragment or Muratorian Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. Canon is instructive for students of the Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7.

264

Introduction to 2 Peter

New Testament, but especially so for students of the Petrine literature. Generally the fragment situates the drama of canon formation in the context of the concerns raised by Marcion in the mid-second century. Twice the fragment mentions Marcion. Marcion was the son of a bishop, and he developed particular ideas about orthodoxy. He rejected what he perceived to be the violent and judgmental God of the Old Testament and instead embraced a more compassionate New Testament God. In a word, Marcion’s reasons for rejecting the Old Testament and many of the works now found in the New Testament were rooted in a brewing anti-Semitism that, unfortunately, flourished in later centuries of the church. Marcion’s canon was spare: the Gospel of Luke and an edited collection of Pauline epistles (he removed all positive references to the connections between historic Judaism and his understanding of an independent Christianity). The second-century response to Marcion was swift and furious. He was branded a heretic—as the Muratorian Fragment reflects—and became an impetus for an orthodox development of the canon. For students of Petrine literature, the Muratorian Fragment helps to contextualize the place of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude in the development of the canon. The first thing noticed is that neither of the Petrine epistles is recognized. Jude, on the other hand, is noted and embraced. That Jude is embraced and the Petrine epistles are not is evidence that the Petrine epistles either were unknown or not generally respected by the end of the second century. We will explore the relationship between 2 Peter and 1 Peter and Jude in more detail below. The fragment does accept “the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.”7 The caveat that the Apocalypse of Peter was not suitable for use in worship is no doubt because of the graphic—even lurid—descriptions of the damned in hell. After a brief portrayal of the righteous in heaven the apocalypse shifts: 20 And over against that place I saw another, squalid, and it was the place of punishment; and those who were punished there and the punishing angels had their raiment dark like the air of the place. 21 And there were certain there hanging by the tongue: and these were the blasphemers of the way of righteousness; and under them lay fire, burning and punishing them. 22 And there was a great lake, full of flaming mire, in which were certain men that pervert righteousness,

Introduction to 2 Peter

265

and tormenting angels afflicted them. 23 And there were also others, women, hanged by their hair over that mire that bubbled up: and these were they who adorned themselves for adultery; and the men who mingled with them in the defilement of adultery, were hanging by the feet and their heads in that mire. And I said: I did not believe that I should come into this place. 24 And I saw the murderers and those who conspired with them, cast into a certain strait place, full of evil snakes, and smitten by those beasts, and thus turning to and fro in that punishment; and worms, as it were clouds of darkness, afflicted them. And the souls of the murdered stood and looked upon the punishment of those murderers and said: O God, thy judgment is just. 25 And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat Muratorian Fragment women having the gore up to their necks, and over The Muratorian Fragment (also called the Muratorian Canon) is regarded as against them sat many children who were born to the earliest attempt to identify orthodox literathem out of due time, crying; and there came forth ture for the early Christians (c. AD 170–200). from them sparks of fire and smote the women in The fragment is instructive, especially for stuthe eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived dents of the Petrine literature. The document and caused abortion. 26 And other men and women recognizes the Epistle of Jude as reliable, but were burning up to the middle and were cast into a fails to mention either 1 or 2 Peter. Even more curious is that the fragment embraces the dark place and were beaten by evil spirits, and their Apocalypse of Peter, but cautions against using inwards were eaten by restless worms: and these it in church services. were they who persecuted the righteous and delivThe Muratorian Fragment raises serious ered them up. 27 And near those there were again questions about the early acceptance of 1 and women and men gnawing their own lips, and being 2 Peter as orthodox literature. punished and receiving a red-hot iron in their eyes: See Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 191–201. and these were they who blasphemed and slandered the way of righteousness. 28 And over against these again other men and women gnawing their tongues and having flaming fire in their mouths: and these were the false witnesses.8 [Muratorian Fragment]

The importance of the Apocalypse of Peter is a third point of interest in establishing a pseudonymous authorship of 2 Peter. Few contemporary scholars have taken seriously the relationship between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter as a matter of authorship of 2 Peter. Bauckham, Neyrey, and Lapham, with ascending success, provide important insights through the mazes that appear in explorations of the interdependency of Petrine and Pseudopetrine texts. Each focuses upon the way 2 Peter adapts the transfiguration as an argument in defense of the Parousia.

266

Introduction to 2 Peter

In the Synoptic Gospels, the transfiguration narrative is a Christological affirmation. On the other hand, the Apocalypse of Peter transforms the Christological identity of Jesus into an eschatological anticipation of Christ’s return. Bauckham notes that 2 Peter 1:16-18 is the source for this transformation. Second Peter’s less-than-accurate report of the transfiguration,9 regardless of which Synoptic Gospel one looks to, becomes a more expansive revelation to the twelve apostles with a sharp focus on the endtimes.10 Bauckham claims that the “significance of 2 Peter’s understanding of the Transfiguration for the date and character of the work will be better appreciated if it is compared with secondcentury versions of the Transfiguration.”11 He goes on to observe that the 2 Peter passage is “diverted to a new function: the revelation of the glory of the redeemed in paradise . . . applied, not to Jesus, but to the destiny of Christians.”12 Neyrey builds upon the differences of settings of the transfiguration in the Synoptics and in 2 Peter. He notes that, unlike the synoptic setting in which the messianic identity of Jesus is affirmed, 2 Peter’s use of the event “functions as a commissioning by God of the person who receives the theophany,”13 that is, Peter. Neyrey connects 2 Peter to the Apocalypse of Peter as “a tradition which located the transfiguration at a different time in Jesus’ career and interpreted it as a prediction of the Parousia.”14 Lapham’s primary goal is to establish a coherent “Petrine theology”15 that engages canonical and noncanocial Petrine texts. He notes that the “Transfiguration is so central a feature of the Petrine tradition . . . that it is important to be aware of the original purpose of the story.”16 Lapham concedes to a growing “agreement among modern exegetes that the story has no concrete historical foundation,”17 and moves toward a composite understanding of how the transfiguration narratives in the synoptic and Petrine traditions address christological, theological, and eschatological convictions. At the same time, he teases out nuances. The synoptic traditions emphasize a distinct but not isolated christological confession: Jesus is the Christ. Second Peter builds upon that confession in a way that honors the Christology but presses toward a theological emphasis with the focus upon the “Majestic Glory” of God (1:17). In the commentary, we will take up the distinction between the Synoptic Gospels’ confession that Jesus is the Christ and 2 Peter’s

Introduction to 2 Peter

assertion that the “majesty” of Jesus Christ was revealed “on the holy mountain” (1:16-18). Lapham’s attention to the canonical and noncanonical texts associated with Peter, especially The Apocalypse of Peter, go a long way toward establishing a post-apostolic community that drew from and built upon the historical prominence of Peter in the apostolic age. Taken together Lapham, Neyrey, and Bauckham situate 2 Peter at least in the second century and therefore provide ample reasons to conclude that 2 Peter, like other noncanoncial texts reflecting a Petrine tradition, is a pseudepigraphon. Origin, Audience, and Date

Second Peter offers few clues about the origin of the letter and its intended audience. Unlike most New Testament letters, 2 Peter does not specify an audience and thus leaves open the question of its geographical origin. Three possible sites usually attract attention from commentators: Rome, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Those who favor Rome do so because of the strong traditions that place Peter there at the end of his life and his career as the leader of the Roman church. Traditions of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome and that city as the presumed origin of 1 Peter—“she who is Babylon sends greetings” (1 Pet 5:13)—lend support to a Roman provenance. It would seem, however, that had 2 Peter and 1 Peter been penned in Rome, they would have had an earlier life as recognized authoritative texts in the early church. That is not the case. Kelly notes that “no NT document had a longer or tougher struggle to win acceptance than 2 Peter.”18 Second Peter’s absence from the earliest attempts to identify a canon and the persistent questions raised about the letter’s authority from the likes of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome make Rome an unlikely origin.19 Asia Minor also gains some support as place of origin and as the intended destination of 2 Peter. The shape of the New Testament canon links 1 and 2 Peter, but the consensus of most recent scholars is that the two works are not related. Second Peter 3:1 claims, “This is . . . the second letter I am writing to you.” Davids is judicious about the internal claim. Acknowledging scant information about the origin and audience, he adds, “unless we believe that 2 Pet 3:1 indicates that 2 Peter was written to the same communities of believers to which 1 Peter was addressed.”20 First Peter

267

268

Introduction to 2 Peter

Map of Rome, Asia Minor, and Egypt

Jerusalem

is addressed to communities of believers in Asia Minor, so Davids is open to Asia Minor as the home of the recipients of 2 Peter. The “unless,” however, hangs in the air for those unconvinced of an organic relationship between 1 and 2 Peter. It need not be a suspicion. It could be an ironic support for the arguments of pseudonymity. Asia Minor is the stated destination of 1 Peter (1 Pet 1:1). Add to the picture the dramatic conflict between Paul and Peter recounted in Galatians (2:1-14) and the overt mention of “our beloved brother Paul who wrote to you according to the wisdom given him” (2 Pet 3:15), and Asia Minor makes sense as both origin and destination for a pseudepigraphon in the name of Peter. Kelly observes that “Egypt has been conjectured as [2 Peter’s] origin, mainly on the grounds that it obtained its earliest . . . recognition there and was so speedily pounced upon by the author of The Apocalypse of Peter.”21 Lapham agrees that 2 Peter enjoyed popularity in the same communities that embraced The Apocalypse of Peter, but with the benefit of more than three additional decades of research since Kelly’s commentary, he offers a more thorough assessment of the relationships between 2 Peter and the three extant versions of The Apocalypse of Peter.22 What Lapham does not concede is that The Apocalypse of Peter—in its Greek version—is Egyptian in origin. “The greater probability,” he writes, is that it

Introduction to 2 Peter

“originated not in Egypt, but somewhere in the Judaean or CoeleSyrian regions.”23 Thus Lapham suggests that “2 Peter . . . shows signs of having been written from Antioch or Caesarea in the east [sic] . . . [and] seems to have been known at least towards the end of the second century.”24 As in the case of attempting to identify the author of 2 Peter, we must apply a respectful question mark to the issues of origin and audience. Craddock’s refrain of what we know, what we wished we knew, and what we don’t know25 has particular bearing upon the questions of the origin and audience of 2 Peter as do Reicke’s comments that the “actual place of origin does not greatly matter,”26 and that 2 Peter “is intended for the church in general.”27 Given the uncertainties about authorship, origin, and audience, any attempt to establish a date for the writing of 2 Peter is speculative. A reasonable window for the writing is open any time from the late 90s, to take into consideration of 2 Peter’s use of Jude,28 and the second quarter of the second century, to take into consideration the inspiration 2 Peter gives to the Apocalypse of Peter.29 Relationship to 1 Peter and Jude

Few commentators in the last half-century invest much energy exploring the relationship between 1 and 2 Peter. In the same period, there has been increasing interest in the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter. The growing fascination with the Jude2 Peter comparison has revived interest in 2 Peter in its own right, too. From antiquity, 2 Peter was under suspicion as an inauthentic letter, as noted above. Jerome, the fourth-century linguist and creator of the Vulgate, observed in his Lives of Illustrious Men that “He [Peter] wrote two epistles . . . the second of which on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him.”30 More recently, Kraftchick has drawn a comparison between the two canonical Petrine epistles: “[T]he two epistles display radically different styles and language.”31 He goes on to note that “First Peter tends toward a straightforward . . . syntax and . . . vocabulary . . . [that are] neither rare nor ornate.”32 By contrast, “Second Peter is written in a grandiose style with ornate use of figures and its language is far removed from everyday use.”33 Reicke defends the ornateness of 2 Peter as a style that “embodies a

269

270

Introduction to 2 Peter

school of Greek rhetoric which embraced an artificial style comparable to that of the baroque. This was the so-called ‘Asianism’ that competed with strict Atticism.”34 While the matters of style employed by 1 and 2 Peter appear as the central reason to conclude that the two epistles are not organically related, the matter of theology is of concern, too. First Peter primarily is a warning and pep talk for Christians in Asia Minor that persecution is coming their way. First Peter presses the issue of the example of Christ’s sufferings as a compelling reason for the recipients to endure suffering, too. The epistle also challenges its broad audience to suffer for the right reasons, specifically for their faithfulness to the hope of the gospel. First Peter encourages the church to cultivate a self-conscious identity as “aliens and exiles” (1 Pet 2:11) and to “conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles” (2:12). By contrast, 2 Peter offers no theological reflection upon the sufferings of Christ and the importance of the cross. Neither does 2 Peter develop the importance of the church in the world. Instead, 2 Peter shifts theological attention to matters concerning judgment and the Parousia. Elliott observes that 2 Peter “has no developed Christology or ecclesiology.”35 Second Peter 3:1, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you,” often requires attention to 1 Peter as the supposed first letter. Lapham revives the argument that canonical 2 Peter may contain two letters from the same author with 2 Peter 3:1 being “the beginning of a separate letter, the first two chapters of 2 Peter constituting substantially the former letter implied in the verse.”36 His argument rests upon two points. (1) “[T]he writer uses the present tense for both gravfw [graphø] and diegeivrw [diegeirø], suggest[ing] that the ‘second letter’ consists only of this final chapter.”37 (2) There is “an exact parallel” of the author’s intent “to remind his readers of the truths they must maintain”38 in 2 Peter 1:12 and 2 Peter 3:1-2. Against those who read the opening of chapter 3 as an allusion to 1 Peter 1:10, Lapham notes that mere mention of the prophets “hardly represents a rousing reminder of the apostolic warning of the rise of false teachers in the Church. Such, however, is exactly the force of 2 Pet 1:12—yet another indication that two Petrine letters have come together in what has come to be known as 2 Peter.”39

Introduction to 2 Peter

271

The relationship of Jude and 2 Peter is well established. Even the casual reader of the two epistles will notice parallels and allusions. The task is to figure out which author used whom in the writing, or if both authors had a common source. Mills notes that “since the early nineteenth century, a majority of scholarly opinion has favored the priority of Jude.”40 Other commentators have proposed the priority of 2 Peter, but with each development in Petrine research that position loses traction. Kraftchick summarizes the compelling argument for the priority of Jude in three steps. First there is the widely accepted conclusion that 2 Peter is Jude and 2 Peter Parallels a pseudepigraphon, which effectively removes the Comparable Passages in Jude and 2 Peter impulse for the author of Jude to borrow from it. 2 Peter Jude Next is the acknowledgment that “Jude 4-16 is a care2:1-2 4 fully structured literary unit, but its counterparts in 2:3 5 2 Peter appear in a piecemeal fashion.”41 Finally, “it is 2:4 6 2:6 7 more plausible to understand 2 Peter as an expansion 2:10 8 of Jude than to consider Jude as a reduction of 2:11 9 2 Peter.”42 [Jude and 2 Peter Parallels] Kraftchick also dis2:12 10 misses the idea that Jude and 2 Peter shared a 2:13-16 11 2:13, 17 12 common source because “no common source has 2:17 13 been discovered, and there is no ancient evidence for 2:18 16 its existence. . . . If the common source did exist, one 3:1-2 17 is hard-pressed to explain why Jude would have been 3:3 18 43 composed.” Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002).

Peter and Paul

The book of Acts opens with the high drama of the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem awaiting the power of the Holy Spirit that is unleashed on Pentecost (Acts 1–2). Acts ends with the equally high drama, if understated, of Paul arriving in Rome and conducting conferences with Jews about his commitment to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 28, esp. vv. 23-29). The watershed between these two scenes rises in Acts 15. The so-called Jerusalem Council debates whether the good news of Jesus as the Messiah should be offered to the Gentiles without demanding that they submit to circumcision. Not only is Acts 15 the watershed moment in the Acts, but it is, arguably, the watershed moment in early Christianity. Acts 15 is the first explicit narrative in the New Testament that puts Paul and Peter in the same scene.44 Paul and Barnabas are

272

Introduction to 2 Peter

called upon to defend their missionary work among the Gentiles. Significantly, Peter speaks in defense of the Gentile mission, based upon his experience with Cornelius at Joppa (Acts 10). The second narrative where Peter and Paul are in the same scene comes in the report of Paul in Galatians 1:18. Paul says he spent fifteen days with “Cephas”; no details of that visit are given. A third meeting of Peter and Paul also comes in Galatians. In what probably is a corroborating account of the Jerusalem Council, Paul describes a trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus to meet with “James and Cephas and John” that Peter and Paul concluded with the agreement that Peter would proclaim the gospel to the “circumcised” (i.e., the Jews) and that Paul would proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. The agreement was sealed with “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:1-10). Finally, Galatians Image Not Available 2:11-14 describes a contentious meeting of due to lack of digital rights. Peter and Paul in Antioch. There Paul calls Please view the published out Peter for hypocrisy with regard to his commentary or perform an Internet public and private relationships with the search using the credit below. Gentiles. The four scenes recounted above help frame 2 Peter 3:15-16. The perceived tensions between Peter and Paul in the canon—and in the early church—presumably are on the mind of the author of 2 Peter. Rico da Candia (16th C.). Saints Peter and Paul. Icon. Accademia, Designating Paul as a “beloved brother” who Florence, Italy. (Credit: Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY) is misunderstood or misrepresented plays into the agenda of the author of 2 Peter. The perceived tensions between Peter and Paul hang like a cloud over the canon. The origin of those tensions certainly derive from Galatians 2:11-14. That 2 Peter attempts to soothe the tensions further adds to the conclusion that 2 Peter is a late composition and has the benefit of a broad perspective about what texts were eventually embraced by the church as authoritative. Style of the Work

Above all other considerations, 2 Peter is a pastoral letter. Its sharp focus on specific matters of ethics and doctrine that challenge his

Introduction to 2 Peter

audience is evidence that the goal of the letter is to nurture an understanding faithfulness that includes both faithful living and faithful thinking. The designation of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus as the Pastoral Epistles leaves the impression that they represent the model for a pastoral letter, one that is directed to a leader of a congregation (or an overseer of many congregations) with strategies and encouragements for church administration. As such, the idea of a pastoral letter has been restricted in its scope. Reicke expands the idea of epistles in the New Testament to include pastoral concerns and motives for writing. He notes that “most New Testament epistles are not literary substitutes for conversation, like private letters, but ways of speaking publicly to congregations that could not be addressed in person.”45 He continues, “if a church authority could not visit the believers he wanted to address, he preached to them in writing . . . and the people were able to listen to the words of the writer, as though the latter were speaking personally.”46 Pursuing his argument that 2 Peter was composed in Rome by someone who “may have come with Peter to Rome many years before from one of [the] churches in Asia Minor,”47 Witherington theorizes that 2 Peter takes the form of “an encyclical to the whole church” with the purpose of preserving “the Petrine and early Jewish legacy, in the wake of the Pauline one sweeping the across the church.”48 He concludes with emphasis: “I would suggest that [2 Peter] may well be the very first document and the very first encyclical ever written to the entire extant church.”49 As well as epistolary style, 2 Peter is shaped by the device known as a “testament” or a “farewell speech.” Bauckham summarizes the genre as employed in 2 Peter: Papyrus 72, the Bodmer VII Papyrus Papyrus Bodmer VIII, Original: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PDArt (PD-old-auto)]

273

274

Introduction to 2 Peter (1) Ethical admonitions: before his death a patriarch gives . . . a definitive summary of his ethical and religious instruction which [the audiences] are to follow in the future, often with eschatological sanctions attached. (2) Revelations of the future: in accordance with the ancient belief that the last hours of a great man were a time when he was endowed with prophetic knowledge of the future . . . often in the form of apocalyptic revelations . . . [and] as a basis for eschatological paraenesis [instruction].50

Harrelson on “Testaments” Apocryphal testaments are documents found largely in the OT pseudepigrapha and purport to be the last words of the biblical personality named. There are testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, of Moses, or Job, of Abraham, and many other biblical figures. . . . These documents are patterned after the blessings of Jacob (Gen 49) and Moses (Deut 33). . . . [A] feature of the “last words” of ancient worthies was the capacity of these dying ones to impart moral guidance. . . . These apocryphal testaments were of great importance in the shaping of the moral traditions drawn from the Bible. They also were valued for their speculative reflections on the heavens and the underworld, on the mysteries of the universe. And some of the terms from the testaments of Moses and the Twelve Patriarchs became particularly important in the development of Jewish and Christian messianism.

Testaments were popular among first- and second-century Jewish audiences and used and modified by New Testament writers. [Harrelson on “Testaments”]

Following Bauckham, we can see the importance of the impending death of Peter (2 Pet 1:12-15) as that which binds together the whole letter. The “these things” of v. 12 refers to the previous paragraph (1:3-11) that lays out the essential relationship between faithful living and faithful thinking: “everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (v. 3). The passage not only looks back, but forward. In the shadow of his impending death Peter promises to “make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (v. 15). Near the end of the Excerpt from Walter Harrelson, “Testaments, Apocryphal,” in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills et al.; Macon letter—at 3:1-2—the theme of remembering GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 888. appears again, but with a deft insinuation that the writer is in the company of “the holy prophets, . . . [and] the Lord and Savior” whose words also have been “spoken through your apostles.” Taken as a whole, then, 1:3-15 meets the “ethical admonitions” aspect of the testament genre.51 The “revelations of the future” aspect of the testament genre also appears near the beginning and end of the letter. Second Peter 1:16-18 refers to the transfiguration as a revelatory moment in which the “majesty” of Jesus discloses the “Majestic Glory” of God, which is also an assurance of the “power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Note, again, how this passage looks backward and forward. Looking backward, one both sees and hears events associated with the baptism of Jesus and the transfiguration as found in

Introduction to 2 Peter

275

the Synoptic Gospels. The main The Martyrdom of Saint Peter point of the passage, however, appears to be an argument for the Parousia as a teaching distinct from “cleverly devised myths.” Second Peter 3:7-15a returns to the revelations of the future aspect of the testament genre, but with a focus upon “apocalyptic prophecy . Image Not Available . . and . . . eschatological paraendue to lack of digital rights. esis.”52 Please view the published Bauckham develops a strong commentary or perform an Internet argument for 2 Peter as an example search using the credit below. of the testament genre. In a moment of self-congratulation, perhaps, he claims that four passages from 2 Peter (1:3-11, 2:1-3a, 3:1-4, and especially 1:12-15) “would leave no contemporary reader in doubt that 2 Peter belonged to the genre of ‘testa- Jean Fouquet (c.1415/20–1481). Les Heures d’Etienne Chavalier: The Martyrdom of Saint Peter. 15th C. AD. Musée Condé, Chantilly, France. (Credit: René-Gabriel Ojéda, ment.’”53 Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY) In addition to the pastoral character of 2 Peter and its mimicry of the testament genre, rhetorical critics have demonstrated that the letter also bears the marks of a particular form of argumentation that was used frequently and respected widely in the Greco-Roman world. Watson concludes that “2 Peter is a rhetorical whole in its present state”54 that conforms to the standards of “deliberative rhetoric,”55 which is designed “to advise and dissuade the audience with regard to a particular way of thinking and course of action.”56 He also notes that within the rhetorical whole of 2 Peter there are “concentrated sections of judicial and epideictic rhetoric” that extend the force of the attempt to persuade the audience to reject the opponents’ mind-set and behavior.57 [Rhetorical Criticism] Focusing upon these concentrated sections of judicial and epideictic rhetorical style, Watson claims that there is “only one [rhetorical] question” that drives the argument of 2 Peter, namely, “Is the doctrine of the Parousia and the judgment adequately supported, and are the moral restraints and Christian growth essential?”58 Judicial style, “concerned with accusation and

276

Introduction to 2 Peter

Rhetorical Criticism What is Rhetorical Criticism? Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism can be traced to Old Testament scholar James Muilenburg’s 1968 presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature in which he challenged biblical scholars to explore the “artistry” of texts as a way to begin “to think the thoughts of the biblical writer after him.” Three years later Amos Wilder published the seminal work for New Testament scholars, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospels. Taken together, Muilenburg and Wilder launched a renewed focus upon the way biblical writers constructed their arguments with the goal of persuading readers to develop new ways of seeing and expressing biblical truths. New Testament rhetorical critics especially rely upon the rich traditions of Greeks and Romans like Aristotle and Cicero as clues to understand how the construction of arguments employed by New Testament writers added power to their convictions. They emphasize the form and structure of passages and books in the New Testament as a way to expose the persuasiveness that drive the convictions of the biblical writers. It is the case that ancient writers like Augustine and Jerome, and reformation writers like Melancthon and Calvin, were aware of the rhetorical devices used by biblical authors, but only since the mid-1970s has the critical method become yet another tool for interpreting the Bible.

defense,”59 shapes 1:16–2:10a and 3:1-13 “where 2 Peter refutes and counteraccuses the claims of his opponents.”60 Epideictic style, which offers “praises and blames . . . with a view to increasing or decreasing assent to some value,”61 aptly characterizes 2:10b-22 where we find a “barbed denunciation of the false teachers based upon their teaching and deeds aimed at decreasing audience assent to both.”62. [Abridged Rhetorical Outline]

Theological and Ethical Themes

Second Peter’s forceful defense of the Parousia is the most obvious feature of the letter. Once the author completes the preliminary matters of greetings and encouragements, the letter immediately turns to refute the charge that “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” are “cleverly devised myths,” and that the conviction of Christ’s return rests upon the revelation of Jesus’ “majesty” disclosed Adapted from Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: to the disciples “on the holy mountain” Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 1–28; and Paul E. Koptak, “Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A (1:16-18). As the letter moves toward its Resource for Preaching,” http://www.religiononline.org/showarticle.asp?title’20 (accessed 15 May 2010). conclusion, the author cites his opponents who ask, “Where is the promise of his coming?” with the claim that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” (3:4). The final argument of the letter is a defense of the Parousia in the face of its delay. Taken together, then, the defense of the coming of Christ and an explanation for the delay of that coming provide the verbal parentheses that enclose the letter. Judgment is a corollary to 2 Peter’s conviction of the certainty of the Parousia. The materials borrowed from Jude and reworked as part of the defense of the Parousia occupy most of chapter 2. The author explores a selected catalogue of judgments described in Scripture as proof that his opponents, too, will be held accountable for their unbelief and for leading the weak astray. In 3:3-10 the

Introduction to 2 Peter

277

inevitability of judgment is underscored. Abridged Rhetorical Outline Below is an abridged outline of the rhetorical The certainty of Christ’s coming and the structure of 2 Peter. judgment also serve to frame 2 Peter’s concern for moral living as evidence of the I. Prescript, 1:1-2 power of the gospel. Second Peter 1:5-9 recites a list of virtues that “will keep you II. Exordium (getting the attention of the audience so they might be receptive to the argument as it from being ineffective and unfruitful in the unfolds), 1:3-15 knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8). In addition to the main theological con- III. Probatio (persuading the audience of the validity of the argument), 1:16–3:13 cerns of Parousia and judgment and the A. First Accusation and Refutation, 1:16-19 broad ethical concerns of the Christian life, B. Second Accusation and Refutation, 1:20-21 2 Peter touches upon an array of other C. Counter Accusation, 2:1-3a theological and ethical topics. In the comD. Third Accusation and Refutation, 2:3b-10a E. Digressso (an attack upon the mind-set of the mentary, we will treat each issue as it opponents), 2:10b-22 appears, but a summary of secondary F. Transitio (a return to the Exordium), 3:1-2 themes found in the letter may whet the G. Fourth Accusation and Refutation, 3:3-13 reader’s appetite for what is to come. Apostasy, both as threat and reality, appear IV. Peroratio (a conclusion), 3:14-18 A. Repetitio (summary of argument), 3:14-16 in 1:10 and 2:20-22. Second Peter 2:1 raises B. Adfectus (an emotional appeal to consent to the the specter of heresy. The question of the argument), 3:17-18 authority of prophets and apostles and perhaps Scripture appears in 1:19-21 and Adapted from Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars again in 3:2. The continuing power of God Rhetorical Press, 1988) 81–142. as creator, judge, and redeemer is touched upon in 3:3-10. Eschatological hope is expressed in 3:13. The list of virtues found in 1:5-9 is complemented with numerous references to particular sins, including greed and exploitation (2:3 and 2:13-18), lawlessness (2:8 and 3:17), corrupt desires and carousing (2:10-17). Identifying the Opponents

Who are the opponents—the “false teachers” (2:1) and the “scoffers” (3:3)—causing 2 Peter to condemn them with such force and wrath? What can be known of them from the letter are, at best, secondhand versions of what they believe, teach, and practice. What is clear is that our author considers them to be a serious threat to the temporal and eternal plight of his audience. That alone should make contemporary readers cautious about taking at face value what the letter attributes to the opponents. Kraftchick

278

Introduction to 2 Peter

surmises that the readers and hearers of 2 Peter “knew these [alleged false] teachers” and that, therefore, “the author could not completely misrepresent them or his own counter-arguments would have lost credibility.”63 Although they are accused of heresy (2:1) and even apostasy (2:20-22), it appears that the opponents still consider themselves authentic members of the community of faith. In the only attempt to actually quote the words of the opponents in 2 Peter, they are reported to have said that “since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” (3:4). The reference to “our ancestors” is to the apostles. Broadly, the opponents identify with the community and, apparently, they have gained a following within the community. If it were not the case, 2 Peter would not have been needed. So, who are the opponents? Witherington notes that the “standard answer used to be some form of Gnosticism, but this theory has been thoroughly discredited by Neyrey and others.”64 For three decades Neyrey has been the main source for those attempting to navigate the murky waters of New Testament sociological and rhetorical analysis. That is especially the case for those seeking clarity on the character of the opponents who elicited 2 Peter’s vigorous response. Neyrey’s insights derive from his thorough examination of ancient polemics against those who deny divine providence in creation and judgment, deny the possibility of prophecy, and contend that traditional doctrines of a deity engaged in human affairs abolishes the idea of authentic freedom. Chief among the ancient polemicists are Plutarch (De Sera Numinis Vindicta) and Lactanitus (Divinae Institutiones and De Ira Dei).65 The works of Plutarch (d. 122) and Lactanitus (d. no earlier than 326) represent what Neyrey identifies as a “commonplace argument” from the early second century against the Epicureans.66 Epicurus (341–270 BC) was a Greek philosopher who developed a comprehensive view of the universe based upon “pleasure,” which should be understood as living a life with “no trouble.” In his Principle Doctrines67 he denies that gods are involved in the affairs of human beings, affirms the pursuit of “pleasure” as the highest goal of humans, posits that death is the end of each human life, and, therefore, rejects any idea of postmortem justice by the gods. Freedom for Epicurus was the freedom of fear of death and the fear of retribution after death. Epicurus also rejected the Homeric

Introduction to 2 Peter

279

myths as fictions designed to control Epicurus human beings.68 Neyrey does not suggest that there is an organic relationship between 2 Peter and the polemical works of Plutarch and Lactanitus (the dates of the three works clearly militate against such a claim), but he does contend that the works disclose an ethos of the Hellenistic era that pitted pro-providentialists against antiprovindentialists. Neyrey observes that “when the template of Epicurean doctrine . . . is placed over 2 Peter, we are able to discern the contours of the commonplace arguments, both denying the judgment of God and affirming it.”69 He goes on to note that the same “argument can be found in Jewish and Greek sources without specific attribution to Epicurus” and that “the opponents of 2 Peter voice a doctrine usually Head of Epikouros. Roman copy of the Imperial era (AD 2d C.) after a Greek origassociated with ‘atheists’ such as inal of the 1st half of the 3rd century BC. Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-2.5) Epicureans.”70 Finally, Neyrey explores the relationship between popular Epicureans in the Hellenistic era and the “Jewish Apikoros” that are prominent in post-biblical Talmudic literature. The terms, Epicurean and Apikoros, appear to have common roots; some claim that Apikoros is a transliteration of Epicurean and others deny such a correspondence. Neyrey draws a cautious conclusion: “While we cannot be certain that Apikoros derives directly from ‘Epicurean,’ the similarity of positions held by both indicates a rather widespread and so common . . . stance in antiquity.”71 With Neyrey and others, we identify the opponents that occasioned the writing of 2 Peter to be representative of the Epicurean ethos that challenged the confessions and practices of post-apostolic Christianity.

280

Introduction to 2 Peter

CONNECTIONS Reading the Bible with critical curiosity demands a lot. Even the casual reader of the Bible cannot avoid the questions that bubble up from the pages. Because the Bible offers a sweeping overview of how the conviction that God shaped—and continues to shape— communities of faith, the questions that drive the history and literature of those communities also have an impact upon contemporary readers. The Bible is literature of history, but it also is contemporary literature for faithful people who believe that the God first revealed to Abraham and Sarah is the same God who speaks to and through the kings of ancient Israel and Judah, the prophets who challenged those kings and their subjects, and was made known in a definitive way through Jesus Christ. The New Testament not only tells the Jesus story; it also reflects how the early church relied upon the witness of the apostles to interpret the covenants associated with Abraham, Moses, David, and Jeremiah in light of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The New Testament, too, offers important insights into the way the post-apostolic communities of faith moved toward becoming the Body of Christ, the church that spread throughout the GrecoRoman world and continues to have a global impact in the twenty-first century. How shall we approach the Bible—and in the case of this commentary, 2 Peter—in ways that takes seriously the vitality of the church and richness of its contexts? Because we are faced with literature, we need to be attentive as much as possible to language and style of 2 Peter. Relying upon experts of Hellenistic Greek and the variety of motifs such authors employed, we may gather insights that help us understand the literature in ways that make it possible to apply it to our contemporary settings. Relying upon historians, we may equip ourselves to make our contemporary understanding remain consistent with original issues that lie behind the literature, both in its initial context and in the changing contexts of the church. Relying upon theologians and ethicists, we may be able to keep our focus sharp upon the nuances that encourage both Christian thinking and Christian living. The preliminary matters addressed above in the introduction to 2 Peter are important for every reader. They remind the reader that 2 Peter emerged in a context that is still evolving in the twenty-first century. Concerns about ethical living and doctrines that are true

Introduction to 2 Peter

to the story of Jesus and the witness of the apostles are not only matters of history; they are the pressing issues for every community of Christians in every generation. Failure to give attention to the questions of authorship, intended audience, and argumentation will only weaken the effectiveness of interpretation. The critical reader of the Bible—and in our case of 2 Peter— requires the skills often found among detectives and trial lawyers in our culture. Think of the popularity in our contemporary culture of television series, feature films, and novels that have made icons of those with the skill to sift through data and arrive at reasonable and sustainable assessments of available evidence. Perry Mason is the enduring popular icon of a truth-seeking and truth-finding trial lawyer. Based upon the literary works of Erle Stanley Gardner, Raymond Burr’s portrayal of Perry Mason captured the attention of three generations of television audiences and continues to do well in syndication on cable stations. The original series ran from 1957 through 1966 and was revived in made-fortelevision movies from 1985 to 1995. Burr’s Mason was usually paired with Ray Collins’s Lt. Tragg, the Los Angeles detective who amassed evidence against Mason’s client. Also prominent was the prosecutor, Hamilton Burger (played by William Tallman), who went toe to toe with Mason in the epitome of courtroom drama, almost always in a losing effort. The iconic Perry Mason is a good analogy for the goals of critical readers of 2 Peter, and most of the biblical literature. Available evidence always needs to be sifted, compared, and considered in the hope of establishing the best possible interpretation. Because 2 Peter is both an apology for orthodoxy and an argument against the perceived heresy of the Epicurean ethos that threatened to undermine the audience, we should consider contemporary ways that proponents of differing perspectives present themselves and their opponents. With the appearance of FOX News in 1996, the way people watch and listen to news changed dramatically. Network news came under fire as “biased” with the FOX claim to offer “fair and balanced” coverage. Factor in CNN, public television, and MSNBC, and the viewing audience had a full range of options. Of course, no network can promise genuinely objective coverage of world and national news, but with the available options the responsibility falls to viewers to listen more carefully and sift through the claims and counter-claims of the talking heads who interpret daily events.

281

282

Introduction to 2 Peter

Traditional print journalism—newspapers and magazines—have long encouraged similar critical engagement of world and national happenings, as well as providing perspectives about the rich array of popular cultures of sports, finance, entertainment, and more. In each case, the reader is called upon to evaluate the claims and counter-claims of reporters, pundits, and columnists. No single outlet can provide an unquestioned version of what happens day by day. Readers must weigh the stories against what they know and believe to be most nearly objective. Second Peter is a sharp example from the ancient world that cultures are always divided on important issues. The letter grows out of serious differences of perspective on what it means to think and live faithfully in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although it is piece of ancient literature, 2 Peter is as contemporary as the morning paper and the evening news. Today’s readers will have to consider seriously the way 2 Peter portrays the Epicureans and will have to consider seriously the defense and counter charges made against those opponents. Doing so will raise the questions of what is central to the gospel. There also will be helpful lessons about the ways the gospel is often exploited for reasons that have nothing to do with the gospel. In the process, contemporary readers may find themselves in a debate that is far removed from the ancient world, but also will find themselves in the midst of the demands of discerning how the gospel is best applied to our context. Finally, more than any other New Testament book, 2 Peter raises the question of the canon. That 2 Peter had a difficult path toward acceptance in the canon has been noted above. Its difficult path also elevates the issue of canon as a matter of history and theology. Historically, the canon came to be through a plodding path of arguments for and against particular works being accepted as authoritative. (As an aside, we note that 2 Peter reflects a “for and against” argument for a particular position on the return of Christ and how that teaching should have an impact upon the practical life of the community of faith.) Theologically, 2 Peter raises, perhaps, the issues of inspiration and the authority of Scripture. The “perhaps” will be explored in the commentary section that treats 2 Peter 1:19-21. For now, 2 Peter begs its readers to cultivate openness to history and theological development. To say that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20) does not shut down the issue of the origin of Scripture.

Introduction to 2 Peter

Instead, it opens the issues of inspiration and authority for an ongoing discussion.

Notes 1. Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter, vol. 2 of Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians (Downer’s Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 260–61. 2. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, XI: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude (Downer’s Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000) xx. We reject Bray’s attempt to polarize the discussion about authorship along neat lines of literary and historical analyses. Throughout this introduction is ample evidence that the critical issues raised by 2 Peter are not so easily pigeonholed. 3. Fred B. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude (Int; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) 1–3, 85–93. 4. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1969) 236. 5. Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 80–81. 6. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.11. 7. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 307. The citation is from Metzger’s translation of the fragment. 8. “Early Christian Writings,” The Apocalypse of Peter, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-roberts.html. 9. Note that 2 Peter 1:16-18 merges the synoptic accounts of baptism and transfiguration. More important, 2 Peter reports that the apostles fully grasped the significance of the appearance of Jesus clothed in glory, while the synoptic accounts single out Peter for his failure to understand. Green pursues the argument that the report of the transfiguration in 2 Peter rests upon an eyewitness account and, therefore, predates the Synoptic Gospels (Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude [2d ed.; Grand Rapids MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1987] 91–93). The argument seems to be a stretch of the textual evidence and theological development of the way the Petrine literature uses accounts of the transfiguration. Green agrees with Bauckham that The Apocalypse of Peter relies upon 2 Peter, but he fails to acknowledge the significant theological shift that Bauckham suggests in relation to the function of the scene in the context of the Synoptics and, then, the second century. 10. Apocalypse of Peter 4. 11. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word Books, 1983) 212. 12. Ibid. 13. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 173. 14. Ibid., 174. 15. F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man, and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition (JSNT 239; London: Shefflield Academic Press, 2003) 1. 16. Ibid., 164.

283

284

Introduction to 2 Peter 17. Ibid. 18. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 224. 19. Witherington concedes that 2 Peter lacks apostolic authorship, but still argues that “there is no location more likely for the composition of 2 Peter than the growing church in Rome” (A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 272). Witherington’s argument fails to address the absence of attention given to the letter before fourth century. 20. Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Pillars New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2006) 132. We also should note that Davids embraces the authentic Petrine authorship both of 1 and 2 Peter. 21. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 237. 22. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man, and the Writings, chs. 6, 8, and 9. The three versions of The Apocalypse of Peter include the Ethiopic version, which is included in the Muratorian Canon, the version discovered in a monk’s tomb in Akhmim, Egypt in 1887, and the Coptic version discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. 23. Ibid., 213. 24. Ibid., 169. 25. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude, 1–3, 85–93; see above. 26. Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; New York: Doubleday, 1964) 145. 27. Ibid., 145–46. Italics original. Note that Reicke goes on, nonetheless, to support Rome as a reasonable origin of 2 Peter. 28. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 21–22, opens the window of the composition of Jude a bit wider, suggesting AD 75-100. 29. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man, and the Writings, 210, places the composition of the Ethiopic version of The Apocalypse of Peter, which appears to have been the one included in the Muratorian Canon, “at approximately 135.” 30. Cited in Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 122, n. 5. 31. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 76. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 146–47. First Peter, then, is the more formal, Attic style, while 2 Peter is the more elaborate style associated with Asia Minor. 35. John H. Elliott, “I-II Peter/Jude,” in James, 1–2 Peter, Jude (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982) 123. 36. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man, and the Writings, 155. 37. Ibid., 156. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. Watson E. Mills, “Jude,” in Mercer Commentary on the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson; Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1995) 1320. 41. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 80. 42. Ibid.

Introduction to 2 Peter 43. Ibid. 44. Some might say that the scene of the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7 could include Peter and Paul, but the text does not say so. Some also might cite Acts 9, where Saul is “brought . . . to the apostles” (9:27) by Barnabas, but that scene lacks a reference to Peter, although it is reasonable to conclude that Peter was present at the meeting. Note that we are using ordinal numbers based upon the arrangement of the canon and not a presumed historical sequence. 45. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, xxxi. It is the case that Reicke does not use the term “pastoral” in his general comment, but one can infer that public addresses—via epistles—establish a pastoral tone in many New Testament letters. 46. Ibid. 47. Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 281. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. Witherington adds force to his theory by suggesting that 2 Peter was, perhaps, composed by Pope Linus, “the second Bishop of Rome, succeeding Saint Peter” (ibid., 282). Witherington uses the term “encyclical” rather anachronistically, to associate 2 Peter with the centuries-old practice of the Roman pontiffs. Above we have argued against a Roman provenance for 2 Peter and against the early date of the letter that Witherington’s theory requires. Those issues, however, need not undermine our assessment of 2 Peter as a pastoral letter. 50. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 131. 51. Ibid., 132. 52. Ibid. Already we have raised the issue of the way 2 Peter uses the transfiguration as an expansive moment of revelation (see above). In the commentary, we shall also take up the issue. 53. Ibid. 54. Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 81. To fully appreciate Watson’s careful rhetorical analysis one should consult his documentation. Every page includes references to classic works or rhetoric ranging from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and many more. 55. Ibid., 85; see also pp. 9–13. 56. Ibid., 85. 57. Ibid., 86; see also pp. 9–13. 58. Ibid., 86. Note that Watson uses “question” in the specialized sense of rhetorical analysis as a way to summarize the heart of an argument. It is the case that the “question” posed above appears to be at least two questions, as one would generally use the term. Parousia and judgment, along with moral restraints and Christian growth are, however, dimensions of the single rhetorical question about the validity of “apostolic doctrine” defended in 2 Peter (ibid., 87). 59. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style, 9. 60. Ibid., 86. 61. bid., 10. 62. Ibid., 86. 63. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 77.

285

286

Introduction to 2 Peter 64. Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 278. See also Neyrey, 2 Peter, 122–28 and passim; Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL 99 (1980): 407–31; Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-21,” CBQ 42 (1980): 504–19; and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Epicureans and the Areopagus Speech: Stereotypes and Theodicy,” http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/epicureans.html. 65. Neyrey, “Polemic,” 409, and Neyrey, 2 Peter, 122–24. 66. Neyrey, 2 Peter, 127. 67. Epicurus, Principle Doctrines, trans. Robert Drew Hicks, http://classics. mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html. 68. See Neyrey, “Polemic,” and 2 Peter, 122–27, passim. 69. Neyrey, 2 Peter, 127. 70. Ibid., emphasis added. Epicurus and his popular followers were atheists only insofar as they denied that the deity was engaged in the affairs of the world, i.e., that God exercised providential care. Their deism affirmed the absolute transcendence of the deity, thereby promoting a kind of practical atheism that promised human beings freedom from the fear of judgment and retribution at the hand of God. 71. Ibid., 127–28.

Outline of 2 Peter I. Opening (1:1-2) II. Reminder and Encouragement (1:3-11) A. Sufficiency of Divine Power and Promise (3-4) B. Virtues of Faithful Thinking and Living (5-9) C. Call to Faithfulness (10-11) III. Peter’s Testament and Farewell (1:12-15) IV. The First Three Denials and Defenses (1:16–2:3b) A. Denial and Defense of the Parousia: The First Challenge (1:16-18) B. Denial and Defense of Prophecy: The Second Challenge (1:19-21) C. Denial and Defense of “the Master”: The Third Challenge (2:1-3a) V. Scriptural Proof of the Reality of Judgment (2:1-10a) A. Judgment of the False Teachers (1-3) B. Judgment of the Angels (4) C. Judgment of the Generation of Noah (5) D. Judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (6-8) E. Summary of the Reality of Judgment (9-10) VI. Bold Denunciation of the Opponents (2:10b-22) A. Beasts, Blots, and Blemishes (10b-14) B. Followers of Baalam (15-16) C. Slaves of Corruption and Apostates (17-22) VII. Second Reminder and Encouragement (3:1-2) VIII. Second Denial and Defense of the Parousia: The Fourth Challenge (3:3-7) IX.

Denial and Defense of Judgment: The Fifth Challenge (3:8-13)

X.

Final Reminder and Encouragement (3:14-18)

Conversional Knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Demand for Character Development 2 Peter 1:1-11

COMMENTARY Opening, 1:1-2

The opening of 2 Peter is unusual when compared to most letters in the New Testament. While it does offer a designation of the author, it lacks a specific reference to an audience. Even the designation of the author as “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” is odd. Peter Only here and in Acts 15:14 is Peter referred to as “Simeon.” The term underscores a distinctly Jewish tone that will develop in the letter. It also offers, perhaps, a link to the tradition of the Jerusalem Council that Acts 15 establishes. The Jerusalem Council is a watershed moment in the early church where conservative Jews— represented by Peter and by James, the apparent leader of the Jerusalem church—engaged more progressive Jews like Paul and Barnabas who defended their bold presentation of the gospel to Gentile audiences. In the end, the conservative faction of Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640). Saint Peter as Pope—here the early church affirmed the work of shown with the pallium and the Keys to Heaven. [Credit: Paul and Barnabas. According to Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

290

2 Peter 1:1-11

Acts, the meeting in Jerusalem represented a shift of the spread of the gospel away from Jewish communities of faith to those with Gentile origins. In Galatians Paul offers a corroborating report of the Jerusalem Council, but refers to Peter by his Aramaic appellation, “Cephas.”1 The three ways to refer to Peter—Simon Peter, Cephas, and Simeon Peter—reveal something of the diversity of the early church and the different ways Peter is remembered. In all cases Peter is the undeniable leader of the Twelve. In the opening of 2 Peter there is a subtle preference to emphasize the Jewishness of Simeon Peter. While there is no clear evidence that 2 Peter relies upon the passage from Acts, we can reasonably infer that 2 Peter is aware of the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles of Peter in the early church. Peter becomes an icon for the Jewish branch of the early church. His Aramaic identity places him in Galilee and in the company of Jesus. At the same time Peter is not isolated. Both Acts and Galatians imply healthy relationships between Peter, the Jerusalem church, and the Gentile world.2 In the end 2 Peter attempts to develop good will between the Jewish and Gentile incarnations of the church with the reference to “our beloved brother, Paul” (3:15). Peter3 identifies himself as “a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.” The terms are common in the letters of the New Testament and reflect the certain conviction that Jesus Christ is both Lord and the one who imbues others with power and authority to articulate the gospel. As servant, Peter acknowledges the authority of Jesus Christ. As apostle, Peter claims to share the authority of Jesus Christ as prophet and teacher. Peter’s apostolic authority is woven throughout the letter and will be developed as the central argument in defense of the certainty of Christ’s return and of divine judgment of those who deviate from an orthodox doctrine and ethics. The audience is identified not on the basis of geographical location, as is frequently the case in the New Testament (see, e.g., 1 Pet 1:1-2), but rather on the basis of a shared faith that is of “equal standing with ours” (as in RSV). Bauckham highlights the egalitarian tone of the phrase, noting that the “faith of these later believers is not inferior to that of the apostles” and that the phrase “establish[es] at the outset the major concern of the letter: to communicate the apostles’ teaching to a postapostolic generation.”4 In the introduction I made a case for 2 Peter’s being intended for a

2 Peter 1:1-11

291

Isotimon broad audience in Asia Minor because Peter and The concept of isotimon (equality) is 5 Paul were well known in the region. [Isotimon] most important in Greek law and politics. The “faith as precious as ours” is secured There is hardly a term which is so common as this “through the righteousness of our God and in discussion of law, and nowhere has the close connection between equality and law found such Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1b). Righteousness is an a clear and full expression . . . as among the important theme for the letter, appearing seven Greeks (345–46). times (1:1, 13; 2:5, 7, 8, 21; and 3:13) as a binding theme. As the theme unfolds, it The Greek ideal of [equality] among men is a reflection or part of the cosmic equality . . . [and] becomes apparent that Peter primarily uses the is an essential [power] of the [cosmos]; it creates term with an ethical dimension. In 2 Peter 2:3border, and consequently it is divine (346). 10a “righteousness” is used to describe the character of Noah, who is “a herald of righteous[Equality] is basic to society in Greek political and legal theory, so in Greek philosophy the personal ness,” and also of Lot, who three times is praised society of friends rests upon the same fundafor his godliness in an ungodly context and who mental principle (347). was “tormented in his righteous soul” by the unrighteousness that surrounded him. In 2:21 The concept of legal equality can itself be deepPeter puts a hard edge on “righteousness,” sugened to the point where it becomes a principle of gesting that his opponents had lost that essential judicial righteousness . . . [that] implies simply quality of character that comes from knowing that the judge will dispense the same law without Christ. At the end of the letter, Peter reminds his respect of persons (347). readers that the true home of “righteousness” is These secular forms of equality, which are deterin the “new heavens and a new earth” (3:13) for mined by early law and righteousness, are which he and they are waiting. The ethical bent confronted in the NT by another kind of equality of Peter’s use of “righteousness” leads Davids to which is established by the love of Christians and by the divine gifts of grace (348). conclude that “the ethical quality would be better translated ‘justice’ in that the divine This fact of the endowment of all Christians with patron granting faith acts justly—with fairness the same spiritual gift is described . . . specifically and lack of favoritism—in making his grant.”6 in . . . 2 Pt 1:1 (349). Who is the divine patron granting such a Gustav Stählin, “i[so~, ijsovth~, ijsovtimo~,” TDNT 3:343–55. “faith as precious as ours” (1:1b)? Peter says it comes from “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Theologians steeped in Trinitarian traditions chafe under the phrase, noting that Peter equates God with Jesus Christ and fails to mention the work of the Holy Spirit. They should not. As a matter of history, the development of a Trinitarian theology is on a far horizon at the time of the writing of 2 Peter. The Trinity is not a construction found in the New Testament, although there are evidences of a movement toward developing such a doctrine.7 Peter is not in the position to distinguish between the work of God and the work of Jesus Christ. What he knows is that salvation is from God and

292

2 Peter 1:1-11

Development of the Trinity in the Early Church While the New Testament does introduce the language of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” it does not attempt to develop a coherent teaching about the Trinity. That task fell to the early church. The broad contours of Trinitarian doctrine have been in place since the creative work of theologians in the West such as Tertullian (AD 160–220) and Augustine (AD 354–430). Tertullian coined the term trinitas as a way to maintain the oneness of the substance of God while allowing God to interact with the world through personae (Latin for “masks”). Augustine had the insight to embody the elements of the Trinity into a social or psychological context. He suggested that one entity often functions in multiple ways: a man can be a father, a son, and a husband simultaneously without compromising his core identity (of course, the same is true of a woman who often functions as a mother, a daughter, and a wife simultaneously). In the East, the Cappadocian Fathers (brothers Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus) shaped a more mystical and interactive doctrine of the Trinity that focused upon the “interpenetration” (perichoresis) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that emphasized the unity of the godhead over the distinctions that theologians in the West were eager to articulate.

comes through Jesus Christ. For Peter, faith emanates at once through both. Trinitarian theologians who chafe under the equation of God and Jesus Christ in 1:1b get modest relief in v. 2 where Peter does distinguish between “God” and “Jesus our Lord.” They will have to wait, however, for the only reference to the Holy Spirit in 2 Peter that will come in 1:21. Even there they will be frustrated because Peter will not invest any energy toward an understanding of how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit coalesce into the Trinity. [Development of the Trinity in the Early Church]

The opening of the letter ends with a prayer or a blessing. Peter hopes for “grace and peace” for his audience “in abundance in Image Not Available the knowledge of God and of due to lack of digital rights. Jesus our Lord” (1:2). The grace Please view the published (charis) and peace (eir∑n∑) reflect commentary or perform an Internet the Hellenistic and Jewish flavor search using the credit below. of 2 Peter and, thus, further frame the context of the letter. Peter recognizes the classical Greek ethos of his audience, especially the Epicureanesque ideas Jan van Scorel, Saint Augustine altar, c. 1520. Church St. Stephen, Jerusalem, Israel. (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) that undermine the thinking and living of his readers.8 Against that classical Greek influence, Peter will underscore the distinctly Jewish origins of the gospel and its teachings of judgment. “Grace” derives from the secular setting where subjects receive favor from a ruling authority. “Peace” echoes the Hebrew shalom, which is the “well being” found in relationship to God and God’s people. The dual phrase “belongs to the world of Semitic culture”9 and is a common

2 Peter 1:1-11

293

construction found in Paul’s letters (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; and Gal 1:3) and elsewhere in the New Testament. The final phrase of the opening introduces another key theme of 2 Peter: the “knowledge” (epignøsis) that come through or by “God and our Lord Jesus” (1:2). Reicke renders epignøsei as “intimate knowledge”;10 Neyrey prefers “acknowledgment.”11 Kraftchick observes that in “Christian teaching, epignøsis almost becomes a technical term for knowledge obtained through conversion.”12 He goes on to note that “references to ‘knowing Christ’ are rare elsewhere in the New Testament, but prominent in 2 Peter (1:2, 3, 8; 2:20; 3:18), reflecting the author’s concern to Epignøsis show the interaction of the church with Christ, Epignøsis (decisive knowledge of God) has become almost a technical term for now and in the future.”13 the decisive knowledge of God which is implied in The technical use of epignøsis in 2 Peter makes conversion to the Christian faith. The verb, too, is clear that his prayer and blessing for his audioften used in this sense. . . . 2 Pt. 1:3, 8; 2:20 ence that “grace and peace be yours in mention God or Christ as object (of such knowledge). The theoretical element is present . . . , yet abundance in the knowledge of God and of it is assumed that Christian knowledge carries Jesus our Lord” (1:2) includes his hope that they with it a corresponding manner of life. (707) will continue to be changed because of their intimate encounter with Christ. Conversion for The Christian view of knowledge is . . . largely determined by the OT. An obedient and grateful Peter is not a one-time event, but is rather the acknowledgment of the deeds and demands of beginning of a journey of transformation that is God is linked with knowledge of God and what He being realized and will be realized “both now has done and demands. It is keeping that this and to the day of eternity” (3:18). [Epignøsis] Christian knowledge is not a fixed possession but develops in the life of the Christian as lasting obeSecond Peter opens with a prayer and dience and reflection. . . . It is characteristic that blessing, “May grace and peace be yours in the guiding factor is not interest in Christian abundance in the knowledge of God and of learning but the edification of the community that Jesus our Lord” (1:2) and closes with an exhoris advanced by the gnw`s i~ [gnøsis] of the individual. (707–708) tation, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (3:18). The Rudolph Bultmann, “ginwvskw, gnw`s i~, ejpiginwvskw, opening prayer and blessing, followed by the ejpivgnwsi~,” TDNT 1:689–719. closing exhortation, embrace the whole letter with a pastoral inclusio. In between, Peter encourages and even cajoles his readers to remember their new birthright of conversion through Christ so that they might be strong in the face heretical teachings and temptations to live ungodly lives. Reminder and Encouragement, 1:3-11

Peter stumbles, grammatically speaking, into the body of the letter. Verses 3-4 defy standard rules of grammar from the initial particle,

294

2 Peter 1:1-11

høs (“as” or “since”) to the ambiguous connections between principle phrases such as “his divine power,” “through the knowledge of him who called us,” and “these things.” The convoluted construction of these verses leads Kelly to muse that “one is tempted to think that the author had not sorted the matter out clearly in his own mind.”14 Reicke and Witherington are more generous in their assessments, suggesting that the Asiatic Greek rhetoric of 2 Peter is the reason for the difficult grammar. Reicke explains, perhaps, why modern translations—including his own—attempt to smooth the rough construction for modern audiences: “a literal Head of an Apostle translation would sound too bombastic. The ancients were more used to rhetorical extravagance.”15 Witherington elaborates on the style of 2 Peter, noting that “Asiatic Greek . . . tended to be hyperbolic and Image Not lavish in character” and suggests that 2 Peter 1:3ff. “is Available rather grandiose, like a Rubens work of art.”16 due to lack of digital rights. While Bauckham agrees that 2 Peter 1:3-4 presents Please view the published grammatical challenges, he also provides an insight that commentary or perform an Internet search using the helps the contemporary reader understand the function credit below. of 2 Peter 1:3-11, identifying it as “a miniature ‘farewell sermon’” that summarizes “Peter’s definitive teaching as he would wish it to be remembered after his death.”17 The short homily quickly moves through three points: Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640). Head of an Apostle. Galleria Borghese, Rome, Italy. (Credit: the sufficiency of divine power and promise (vv. 3-4), Alinari/Art Resource, NY) virtues of faithful thinking and living (vv. 5-9), and a call to faithfulness (vv. 10-11). Sufficiency of Divine Power and Promise, 1:3-4 We take vv. 3-4 to build upon the opening section of the letter and thus regard the untranslated høs in v. 3 to hold the reader in a lingering embrace by “a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1b). The lingering embrace continues to shape the readers’ understanding of the power of faith that brings them new life in Christ. “Since” (høs) the readers have received such a faith, they can depend upon the divine power as sufficient for their needs. The five instances of the third person pronoun in these verses certainly hark back to “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in v. 1b. As noted above, Peter is not constrained to distinguish between the works of God and Christ. It is the “divine power” that secures the hope that the readers “may become participants of the divine nature.”

2 Peter 1:1-11

Between the phrases “divine power” (v. 3) and “divine nature” (v. 4), Peter reminds the readers that their intimate, conversional “knowledge [epignøsis] of God and Jesus our Lord” (1:2) is secure if they persevere. Each phrase begs for attention. Kraftchick notes that “divine power” is “unique in the New Testament” and “is the only Christian use of the expression prior to Justin [Martyr]” in the mid-second century. He goes on to say that the phrase, however, is common among Greek philosophers and Hellenistic Jewish authors “to express God’s work in the physical realm.”18 The second phrase, “divine nature”—indeed, all of v. 4— prompted Käsemann to write one of the truly famous sentences in New Testament criticism: “It would be hard to find in the whole New Testament a sentence which, in its expression, its individual motifs and its whole trend, more clearly marks the relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic dualism.”19 Käsemann since has been refuted, if not discredited, on two counts. First is his assumption that the opponents in 2 Peter were Gnostics,20 and second is his conviction that 2 Peter accommodated to their dualism. Davids answers the question, “Has 2 Peter imported Greek dualism into Christian thought?”21 with a defense of the Jewishness of 2 Peter. He properly claims that the “dualism in Judaism and in 2 Peter is at root ethical, not ontological.”22 We will return to this issue below. Between the phrases “divine power” (v. 3) and “divine nature” (v. 4), Peter employs three compound constructions that elaborate upon what “divine power” has done and is doing for his readers. The first is that they have received (that is, have been “given” [vv. 3 and 4]) “everything needed.” Peter joins “life and godliness” (v. 3) as what “divine power” has done for those who have the intimate knowledge (again, epignøsis) through Christ. The second is that they have been “called . . . by his own glory and goodness.” The third is that “he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises.” Kraftchick observes that these three pairs each have the effect of “stress[ing] the magnitude of God’s promises”23 for the readers. Thus, “life and godliness” magnifies “a life characterized by godliness,” while “glory and goodness” focuses upon “glorious goodness,” and “precious and very great promises” serves as a capstone for the constructions.24 Of vv. 3 and 4 Green exclaims, “What contrasts these verses contain!”25 His excitement is less about the elements of the compound phrases noted above than it is the “rare and daring words” Peter uses that “are uncommon in the New Testament but full of

295

296

2 Peter 1:1-11

meaning in the pagan world.”26 Indeed. Peter uses the language of his opponents—even before he takes up their challenges—in ways that appeal to those among his readers who may be swayed by their claims. It is the case, as Green notes, that “Peter is assuredly sailing very close to the wind in using pagan language in this polemical way,”27 but the result is a stunning appeal to his audience to entertain the arguments that will follow. With the compound constructions, Peter appeals to his readers to remember the power of the calling from God in Christ. Three times Peter uses “us” to describe the recipients of “divine power.” Kelly underscores the “us” as a reference “to Christians generally,” and not only to the apostles as elsewhere in the letter.28 Finally, vv. 3 and 4 return to Peter’s point: that through “divine power” (v. 3) his audience may “escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and become participants of the divine nature” (v. 4). Here we return to Käsemann’s famous critique of 2 Peter as a capitulation to Hellenistic dualism. In isolation, v. 4 does seem to reflect a dualism that pits the corruption of the physical world against divine nature. Verse 4, however, is but a part of the whole significance of the “precious and very great promises” of God in Christ. Indeed, v. 4 contains the germ of the rest of the letter. Here we have not a dualism of the material world and the spiritual world, but a first glimpse of Peter’s conviction that sin corrupts while grace redeems. The moral and theological meanings of “corruption that is in the world because of lust” are clear. The world is not innately corrupt; the world is permeated by the corrupting influence of sin. The “escape” from that corrupting influence of sin can be found looking back and looking forward. The promises of God in Christ are certain; they have been secured by “divine power” and are the means by which followers of Christ may live a godly life in the world. The divine promises must also be nurtured, as we will see in vv. 5-9. The promises are secure but require attention to faithful thinking and faithful living. In the end, Peter argues, God will bring judgment upon the godless and will usher in “new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home” (3:13). Peter’s convictions begin with the promises of God in Christ, continue with the nurturing of a godly life, and culminate in Christ’s return and the “day of the Lord” (3:10). When, then, does Peter think the followers of Christ may attain the “divine nature”? Verses 3 and 4 suggest that “divine nature” is

2 Peter 1:1-11

attained only through the final act of God’s power, that is through the “power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16; when we get to that passage we will explore the multiple meanings of “coming,” to include both the incarnation and the presence of Christ as judge at the end of the age). As noted above, the “escape” from the corruptions of sin in the world is progressive: it has been secured by God’s power, is activated through conversion, and will be completed at the consummation. Virtues of Faithful Thinking and Living, 1:5-9 The second point in the “miniature ‘farewell sermon’” (see above) forges a chain of Christian virtues in a hortatory vein. The chain, however, is not ornamental. “For this very reason” links these verses to the preceding section. We also take vv. 5-9 as a continuation of the lingering embrace that begins with v. 3 and, thus, continues to develop the idea in v. 1b, “a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The chain of virtues is similar in form to what we find in Paul, specifically in Romans 5:3-5, Galatians 5:22-26 (and, less so, Phil 4:8). Perhaps Peter knew those lists of virtues and mimicked the style. The reference to “our beloved brother Paul . . . [and] all his letters” (3:15-16) opens the possibility of such an influence. Peter is a proponent of an active faith that relies upon and builds upon the work of God in Christ. Because God “has given us everything needed for life and godliness” (1:3), Peter exhorts his readers, saying “you must make every effort to support your faith” (v. 5). The NIV’s “make every effort to add to your faith” helps clarify the translation of the NRSV, but still falls short. Davids notes that “the verb translated ‘to add’ [epichor∑g∑sate] is far more colorful than that translation might indicate. In secular usage it meant ‘to provide at one’s own expense.’”29 Although the verb appears but once, it is understood each time a new link in the chain of virtues is introduced; as such epichor∑g∑sate assists the variegation of the passage as it moves from “faith” to “love.” [Epichor∑gein] Colorful, indeed! Peter’s exhortation demands a lot from his readers. The certainty of the work of God empowers the follower of Christ to cultivate a moral life that is consistently godly. As we shall see, Peter’s opponents appear to have diminished the need for moral development as a result of their denial of judgment (see 1:8-9 and 2:3b-10a).

297

298

2 Peter 1:1-11

Epichor∑gein This verb, which generally means “to support, to add, or to supply,” only appears in the New Testament in 2 Peter 1:5. Hillyer carefully explores the term: Epichcor∑gein . . . has a vivid history. In the great days of ancient Athens, the plays of the dramatists like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides required large and costly choruses. But when such a play was put on, some wealthy public-spirited Athenian defrayed the vast outlay on the chorus—and consequently was known as the chor∑gos. The noble productions were extravagantly

expensive, but the chor∑goi vied with each other in their generosity. So epichcor∑gein is far richer a term than the somewhat colorless “add” [or “support”] of many English translations of this verse. Believers, Peter is saying, must be lavish in the time and effort they put into developing their Christian lives— not being satisfied with getting by on the minimum, but striving like the chor∑gos of old to achieve the finest and most attractive production. The Christian is duty-bound, or rather love-bound, to offer the world the best possible advertisement of what God’s grace can do. Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (NIBC; Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992) 164–65.

The chain of virtues is forged through a “literary devise known as sorites, . . . a set of statements which proceed, step by step, through the force of logic or reliance upon a succession of indisputable facts, to a climactic conclusion, each statement picking up the last word (or key phrase) of the preceding one.”30 The eight virtues of the chain begin with “faith” and end with “love.” Bauckham notes that there “is some evidence that a catalogue of virtues beginning with pistis (“faith”) and ending with agap∑ (“love”) was an established Christian form” of sorites in the postapostolic era.31 At the same time, as is the case in vv. 3 and 4, the virtues included in the chain borrow significantly from the ethos and language of Hellenistic philosophy. Bauckham rejects any notion that Peter has capitulated to Hellenistic philosophy despite his liberal use of terminology from its schools of thought.32 In 2 Peter the list of virtues is a chain and not a ladder (as in Green33). Although “faith” and “love” are appropriate Christian virtues with which to begin and end the chain, there is no apparent progression or growing importance of the remaining virtues. The number of the virtues in the chain—eight—has been cause for modest disagreement among reputable interpreters.34 “Faith” (pistis) is the first link in the chain and recalls “a faith as precious as ours” (“equal standing with ours” [RSV]) in 1:1). Faith is one of the cardinal virtues of the Christian faith, only challenged for the first position by love. By mentioning it first Peter lets his readers know that all of Christian thinking and living springs from faith in the power of God revealed through Jesus Christ. In the New Testament generally “faith” means “trust” or “believing in”

2 Peter 1:1-11

299

something or someone. It specifically comes to mean “acceptance of the Christian message.”35 “Goodness” (aret∑) is the second link in the chain. In Hellenistic philosophy, the term finally emerged to mean “virtue” and came to embody the highest example of divine and human character as in “excellence of achievement,” while New Testament uses of the term are rare, only in Philippians 4:8 and here.36 Once again Peter is bold in his use of Hellenistic terms. The juxtaAret∑ position of “faith” and “goodness” in the first two links of the chain of virtues demonstrates Peter’s willingness to walk a fine line between the ethos of his opponents and his own convictions about apostolic teaching. “Knowledge” (gnøsis) is the third link in the chain. Temporarily Peter departs from his preferred term, epignøsis (that is tied to conversion; see above), and reverts to a more classical Hellenistic term that merely “denotes . . . the intelligent comprehension of an object.”37 Peter demands that conversional knowledge of Jesus Christ also include particular knowledge of what it means to confess Christ. There must be both a subjective confession that Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of the power of God and an objective understanding about what that confession means for daily living. The Christian life, for Peter, is more than a Aret∑ (“Efficiency”), one of the four allegories of feeling; it must include an understanding of what it Virtue. Roman copy of a Greek original, second half 2d C. Found in front of the Celsus Library, means for the mundane aspects of life in community. Ephesus. Aret∑ in Celsus Library, Ephesus, Turkey. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SAAs a virtue, “knowledge” is the means to create an 4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0) informed congregation of believers. “Self-control” (enkrateian) is the fourth link in the chain. The term is rare in the New Testament, but was regarded by Socrates as “a cardinal virtue.” Later Greek philosophers used the term as descriptive of “the ideal of free and independent man . . . who is under no control but who freely controls all things and who in self-restraint maintains his freedom.” Paul employs the term as an athletic metaphor for self-discipline (1 Cor 9:25) and also in the context of his discussion of sexual restraint, even in the context of marriage (1 Cor 7:9). Peter’s use of the term also suggests that Christians should cultivate sexual continence.38 Peter’s emphasis upon “self-control” is especially striking. He combats his opponents who “speak bombastic nonsense, and with

300

2 Peter 1:1-11

licentious desires of the flesh they entice people . . . [whom they promise] freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption” (2:18-19) with a term from their own classical moral traditions. “Endurance” (hypomon∑n) is the fifth link in the chain. The term also—as did aret∑ and engkrateian—came to be regarded in Greek philosophy as an important virtue. “Endurance” is an “active and energetic resistance to hostile power,” a “standing firm,” and the ability to remain “calm, without excitement, fear, or passion, in the face of the assaults of destiny.” Christian use of the term is shaped by eschatological hope that allows one to remain steadfast “under the difficulties and tests of the present evil age.”39 Once more Peter deftly uses a term that was part of the vocabulary of his opponents. The popular ethos of Hellenistic philosophy resisted any notion of a providential God who was active in human affairs.40 They prided themselves for their mortal, and moral, autonomy and the “endurance” they maintained over against all claims that the present world was a place of preparation for a world to come. In contrast, Peter develops “endurance” as a Christian virtue that does not rely upon autonomy but, rather, “great promises” of God in Christ that empowers believers to “escape from the corruption that is in the world” (1:4). “Godliness” (eusebian) is the sixth link in the chain. The basic meaning of the term is “piety”; originally there was a reference to “the gods,” but in the development of Hellenistic philosophy the emphasis shifted to “the orders of domestic, national, and international life.”41 In Christian parlance, and especially in 2 Peter (there are four references to “godliness”: 1:3, 6-7 [a repetition]; and 2:9), the term reverts to “the gods,” but with a distinctly Christian twist. Instead of the Greek gods, the focus rests upon the “power” of God in Christ (1:2-3); see above. “Mutual affection” (philadelphian) is the seventh link in the chain. A compound construction joining words for “brother” and “love,” the term describes both physical and spiritual relationships among family members, friends, and social groups. The generic meaning of “brotherly love” is focused as a moral virtue in Christian writings and appears in virtue lists, but nowhere as a virtue beyond Christian writing.42 Again Peter uses a common term from Hellenistic culture in an uncommon way for his Christian readers. “Love” (agap∑) concludes the chain and, with “faith,” establishes the key virtues that encompass Christian morality. In its prebiblical

2 Peter 1:1-11

context, agap∑ is one of three ways to convey “love” (the other two are eros, “a passionate love that desires the other for itself,” and philia, which moves toward mutuality as in friendship). The verb agapaø comes to mean “a giving, active love on the other’s behalf.” The separation of the meanings, however, is not rigid; often the terms are used as synonyms, all referring to a general concept of “love.” In specific Christian contexts “ajgajph derives from a consciousness of equal unworthiness before God and His mercy . . . and there grows up a Church which knows of a love that does not desire but gives.”43 Peter’s chain of virtues is stunning in the way it boldly employs the ethical mandates of the Hellenistic world, yet transforms them with a distinctly Christian bearing. He does not flinch in the face of his opponents who were attempting to mitigate Christian values in favor of classical Greek philosophies. Instead he mounts an aggressive apology for Christian values. Later the apology will become a transparent polemic against his opponents (see 2 Pet 1:16–2:22). Peter’s own summary of the importance of the chain of virtues underscores his conviction that faith requires an active cultivation of the Christian life, as was stated earlier: “you must make every effort to support your faith” (1:5). “For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8) also issues a caution. The sentence employs a construction known as a “litotes” that affirms a value by denying its opposite. The first clause, “if these things are yours and are increasing among you,” is a direct reference to the chain of virtues and is followed by an awkward statement of negation, ouk argous oude akarpous kathist∑sin, that literally translates to “they make you neither ineffective nor fruitless.”44 The pairing of similar terms is a common feature of 2 Peter that serves to emphasize a point. In this case, the active pursuit of virtues prevents one from becoming indolent and unproductive. Turning the pair of terms toward Peter’s positive intent, that the virtuous Christian will increase “in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8), is a reminder that a conversional knowledge (which is the meaning of epignøsis) of Christ raises the question of the fate of those who are indolent and unproductive. That is the caution. Verse 9 describes those who are not actively pursuing the virtues as “nearsighted and blind” and “forgetful of the cleansing of past

301

302

2 Peter 1:1-11

sins.” As the letter unfolds, Peter will accuse his opponents of apostasy—of denying the faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ. “They have left the straight road and have gone astray,” Peter declares, and “it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back” (2:15 and 21). The caution against becoming lazy and fruitless in 1:8-9 is mild when compared to the harsh condemnation of the apostates in chapter 2. Call to Faithfulness, 1:10-11 The final point in the “miniature ‘farewell sermon’” (see above) issues a call to faithfulness that brings the homily to challenging conclusion. “Therefore . . . be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.” Here we find another pair of terms, “call and election,” that, taken together, emphasize the “power . . . [and] promises” that make it possible for Christians to “become participants of the divine nature” (1:3-4). Returning to the points in vv. 3 and 4 also reminds the readers that their salvation is the work of God and their own work. God in Christ has done by grace (v. 2) the work of making a way for Christians; now there is responsibility on the part of Christians to follow the path. “If you do this,” Peter says, “you will never stumble.” The challenge to persevere in the cultivation of a moral life ends with a final reminder that God’s grace is active in the life of Christians. “Entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you” includes a future passive form of the same verb Peter used in v. 5 (epichcor∑gein) to encourage his readers to invest themselves in the development of moral character. The lavishness of pursuing the Christian life now is emphasized as the lavishness of God who will secure “entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Kelly notes that only here in the New Testament do we find the phrase “eternal kingdom”; he sees in the phrase evidence that “the eschatological perspective has altered. The kingdom is no longer thought of coming to men, still less as already present . . . ; it lies in the future and is equated with the endless blessedness upon which believers who hold fast will enter at the Parousia.”45

2 Peter 1:1-11

303

CONNECTIONS Two features of 2 Peter 1:1-11 may capture the attention and imagination of contemporary readers. First is Peter’s insistence that the Christian life is an active pursuit of character formation, an emphasis that challenges the common notion Gutiérrez and Cone: Two Theologians of Praxis that Christianity is primarily a development of orthodox doctrine. The second feature is Peter’s bold engagement of the broad cultural ethos of his day, including competing philosophies that offer differing ways to develop faithful thinking and faithful living. During the last quarter of the twentieth century, liberation theologies emerged that challenged a doctrine-only approach to Christianity. Gustavo Gutiérrez in Latin America and James Cone in the United States appeared as critical reformers who claimed that orthodoxy included moral development and theological activism. They developed an underFr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, priest and standing of a theology of praxis, insisting that theologian Christians should strive for right actions as well as right [Credit: Mohan / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art thinking. Reading theology “from the underside,” that (PD-self)] is, from the perspectives of oppressed minorities in the world, Gutiérrez and Cone pressed for theology that was not content with the privileged pronouncements of scholars ensconced in the church and its centers of learning. They contended that authentic theology should develop a healthy suspicion about status quo positions of theologians and ethicists if those positions contributed to the marginalizing of members of the church and prevented a prophetic encounter with the state of the world. A common faith in Christ and attention to the state of the world receive focused attention in 2 Peter 1:1-11. Peter’s claim that Christians have received “a Dr. James Cone at the 174th faith of equal standing with ours” (1:1, as in RSV) is Convocation of Union Theological important because it removes the privilege of apostolic Seminary in the City of New York. authority from the apostles alone and therefore imag[Credit: Coolhappysteve / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-self)] ines a church where all members have, by divine grace, equal access to the power of faith. Gutiérrez writes, “Theology will be a reflection in and on faith as liberating praxis . . . . This reflection starts from a commitment to create a just

304

2 Peter 1:1-11

fraternal society, and must contribute to make it more meaningful, radical, and universal.”46 Cone asks, “What has the gospel of God to do with the weak and helpless and their struggle for freedom in human society?” and answers, “This question forces us to [re]consider the [meaning of ] biblical faith.”47 The chain of virtues in 2 Peter 1:5-7 provides a focus for readers eager to rethink what biblical faith looks like in a contentious setting. Peter challenges his readers—and contemporary readers— to rely upon their conversional knowledge (epignøsis) of the heart of the gospel and to expand their understanding of faith in the face of false teachers. The beginning of the twenty-first century is awash in postmodernism, a broad reconsideration of the orthodoxies of the modern era. Not since the Reformation have there been such extensive challenges to accepted authorities of western culture. Postmodernism reflects the questioning of contemporary culture and explores the possibility that the answers offered by science, philosophy, and religion do not come in a “one size fits all” option. The postmodernists contend that truth is broader than the systems and schools of thought that attained privileged status in the modern age with the rise of science and increasingly specialized academic disciplines and, therefore, requires each person to open herself or himself to truth and to interpret it in light of an engagement of the world and personal and communal experiences. [Postmodernism] While some expressions of postmodernism are relativistic in a thoroughgoing way, Christian postmodernism maintains that the gospel is true and is useful as a means to engage changing culture. The challenge of Christian postmodernism, then, is to take seriPostmodernism Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations that claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience

over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal. Postmodernism is “post” because it denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody—a characteristic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html

2 Peter 1:1-11

ously the gospel and its demands while at the same time taking seriously the multiple claims for truth in the contemporary world. Brian McLaren is the most visible and thoughtful Christian postmodernist of recent years. McLaren is not a trained theologian, but he has nearly twenty-five years of practical, pastoral experience. He is a prolific writer who continues to engage culture through a Christian lens. From 2001 to 2005 McLaren published a trilogy48 that is the best-to-date example of how Christian faith can strive to maintain its historical integrity while also being open to other ways of thinking and living. In 2010 McLaren released A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith, which continues to probe the postmodern character of Christianity.49 Readers of 2 Peter who might also have read or shall read Brian McLaren will find striking similarities of method and content. With courage and resolve, Peter takes seriously the claims of his contemporaries with whom he had some things in common and many things not in common. As we saw above, Peter was not opposed to using the language of his opponents and reforming it into distinctly Christian ideas. Second Peter may be a useful model for any generation of Christians who are willing to engage and even confront the culture in which they live.

Notes 1. See Gal 2:1-14, and note 1 Cor 1:10-17 where Paul also refers to Peter as “Cephas.” 2. It is the case that Gal 2:11-14 discloses tension between Paul and Cephas over Gentile-Jewish relations. 3. In the introduction I made the case that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphon, but in this commentary I will take at face value the claim of Petrine authorship and thereby avoid the need to constantly remind readers of that position. 4. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC; Waco: Word Books, 1983) 167. 5. For further discussion, see the introduction. 6. Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (The Pillars New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2006) 162. 7. See, for example, the benediction in 2 Cor 13:13 where Paul extends the hope that “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” While there is an attempt to distinguish what later will be called the “three persons of the Trinity,” there is no attempt by Paul or any other New Testament writer to construct a doctrine of the Trinity. That task falls to theologians of later generations.

305

306

2 Peter 1:1-11 8. For further discussion of the identity of the opponents, see the introduction. 9. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 148. 10. Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; New York: Doubleday, 1964) 150f. He also offers “adequate knowledge” as a possible translation. 11. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 149. 12. Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 88. 13. Ibid., 89. 14. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1969) 300. 15. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 153. 16. Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2 (Downer’s Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 298, 306. 17. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 192. 18. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 91. 19. Ernst Käsemann, “An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W. J. Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 179–80. The essay first was a lecture delivered at the Beinrod Convention and the Berlin Society for Evangelical Theology on 10 September and 10 October 1952, respectively. It subsequently appeared in Zeitschrift für Theologia und Kirche (1952) 42:272–96 (ibid., 169, n. 1). It is fair to claim that Käsemann’s essay launched at least two generations of scholars eager to explore and refute his harsh criticisms of 2 Peter. 20. For further discussion of the question of the opponents, see the introduction. 21. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 174. 22. Ibid., 175. 23. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 92. 24. Ibid. 25. Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2d ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1987) 73. 26. Ibid. The specifics of the “pagan” terms are important. Green writes, “The false teachers laid emphasis on knowledge; so Peter stresses that the object of knowledge in the Christian life is the Lord who calls men. They thought that knowledge dispensed with the need for morality, so Peter emphasizes two words common in pagan circles for ethical endeavor, eusebia (godliness) and aret∑ (goodness). They appear to have thought that holiness of living was impossible . . . , so Peter speaks to them of the divine power. . . . Rival pagan schoolmen asserted that you escaped the toils of corruption (phthora) by becoming participants in the divine nature either by means of nomos (“lawkeeping”) or physis (“nature”). Peter takes up their language, and replies that it is by sheer grace.” 27. Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, 74. 28. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 299–300. 29. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 179.

2 Peter 1:1-11 30. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 175, with reliance upon H. A. Fischel, “The Uses of Sorites (Climax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period,” HUCA 44 (1973):119. 31. Ibid., 176. 32. Ibid., 188. See also Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, 80: “Far from being a mere repetition of pagan ideals, Peter’s list is qualitatively different. For it begins with faith and ends with love, and these are the indispensable root and fruit of Christian ethical behaviour. It may share a good deal in the goals and aspirations of secular moralists . . . but it will transform them by trust in Jesus . . . and will embody them in that selfless agap∑ love which flows only from those who have come to participate in his divine nature.” 33. Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, 75–82. 34. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 306, and Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 155 support the idea that “eight” held some mystical wholeness. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 176, through a comparison of 2 Pet 1:5-7 and Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 3:8:7, deems any mystical interpretation of Peter’s chain of virtues inappropriate. His comparison, instead, suggests that 2 Peter and Shepherd are “variations on a form in use in the catechesis of the Roman church.” Shepherd includes seven virtues while 2 Peter has eight and, therefore, suggests that the author “may [think] of faith as the foundation, to which seven virtues are added.” 35. Rudolf Bultmann, TDNT 6:208–15. 36. Otto Bauerfeind, TDNT 1:457–61. 37. Rudolf Bultmann, TDNT 1:689–92. 38. Walter Grundmann, TDNT 2:339–42. 39. Friedrich Hauck, TDNT 4:581–82, 585–87. 40. For further discussion of the opponents, see the introduction. 41. Werner Foerster, TNDT 7:176-77, 181–84. 42. Hans Freiherr von Soden, TDNT 1:144–46. 43. Ethelbert Stauffer, TDNT 1:35–55. 44. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 188 and Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter, 312. 45. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 310. 46. Gustavo Gutiérrez and Richard Shaull, Liberation and Change (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977) 82. 47. James H. Cone, “The Gospel and the Liberation of the Poor: How My Mind Has Changed,” ChrCent 98 (1981): 162; and “Black Consciousness and the Black Church,” Christianity and Crisis 30 (1970): 245. 48. Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001); A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004); and The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).

307

308

2 Peter 1:1-11 49. Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (SanFrancisco: HarperOne, 2010). McLaren also maintains an active website, www.brianmclaren.net, where readers can keep up with Brian’s continuing journey of faith. (Ah! What a postmodern thing to do!)

Peter’s “Testament” and a Defense of Parousia, Prophecy, and “the Master” 2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

COMMENTARY Following opening greetings and a reminder and encouragement about the demands of the Christian life, which took the form of a short homily (2 Pet 1:1-11), the heart—and the heat—of the letter quickly develops. Peter pens a short “testament” and takes up three of five challenges posed by his opponents. The “testament” sets up the occasion of the letter. The challenges of his opponents appear to set Peter off, too; from 1:16–2:22 and again in 3:3-13, we find a growing ire. Apology turns to polemic and polemic becomes attack. Peter’s Testament and Farewell, 1:12-15

Two primary themes are woven through these four verses. The first one mentioned, and arguably the more important of the two, is the function of memory. The second one, and clearly the more dramatic, is the death of Peter. Each theme is mentioned three times. Peter’s impending death (vv. 13, 14, and 15) makes memory (vv. 12, 13, and 15) necessary as a reason for hope for the readers. The combinations of memory and death contribute to the designation of these verses as an example of the “testament” genre.1 The “testament” genre is most common in the pseudepigraphical literature of Hellenistic Judaism,2 and also appears to have some relationship to the “farewell speech” found in several New Testament works, such as John 15–17, Acts 20:17-38, and, perhaps, Philippians 1:12-30. Testaments and farewell speeches share three common features: an announcement of the impending death of the supposed

310

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

author, a series of reminders of his legacy as a teacher or prophet, and warnings about false prophets or teachers who will threaten the memory of the teacher and his teachings. Peter’s testament and farewell is linked to the preceding section (2 Pet 1:3-11) by the phrase “these things.” There we have a concise summary of Peter’s teaching that is rooted in the conversional knowledge (epignøsis) of This is a depiction of the farewell speech of Jesus to the apostles by Duccio di Buoninsegna. Jesus Christ. Kraftchick Duccio (di Buoninsegna) (c. 1260–1319). Christ Taking Leave of the Apostles. Museo dell’Opera observes that v. 12 is “a Metropolitana, Siena, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] difficult Greek construction” that combines a “future indicative form of the verb ‘I shall’” with “the present indicative of the infinitive ‘to remind,’” made even more odd with “the adverb ‘always.’”3 The effect of “Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things” is a claim that the letter itself will become an enduring reminder and encouragement of Peter and his teaching. The following phrase, “though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you,” is at least hyperbole and even may be mildly patronizing. The verb eidotas lacks the aura of certainty of epignøsis, which is 2 Peter’s signature term for “knowledge.” The force of eidotas suggests that the readers are familiar with “the truth.”4 They may be aware of “the truth,” but not yet secure from the “unstable” (3:16) pronouncements of the false teachers who have prompted the writing of the letter. If the recipients of 2 Peter did indeed know the truth and were “established” in it, why would the letter be necessary? The patronizing hyperbole of v. 12 must therefore be shaped by Peter’s hope that his readers will come to embrace “the truth that has come to you.” Farewell of the Apostles

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

311

Such a reading of v. 12 is consistent with overarching tone of pastoral encouragement that marks 2 Peter. The word group derived from st∑rixø, “to make fast,” appears four times in 2 Peter. Here in 1:12 we find a passive form, est∑rigmenos, that suggests “the truth” is stronger on its own than it is among the readers. The “truth” may be established, but the recipients of the letter are not yet firm. Further evidence that the readers still are vulnerable to moral and theological softness comes later in the letter at 2:14; 3:16; and 3:17. In 2:14 and 3:16, respectively, we find the only uses of ast∑riktous and ast∑riktoi in the New Testament.5 In 2:14 the false teachers “entice unsteady souls”; in 3:16 the “ignorant and unstable” are condemned for their misuse of Paul’s letters. The letter comes near an end with a return to a more hopeful regard for “stability.” In 3:17 we read, “You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.” The readers of 2 Peter still are vulnerable. Peter still is pastoral. The “truth” (see 1:12) is firm. The ideas of memory and death collide in vv. 13-14, with memory getting squeezed on either side by death. Peter “think[s] it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your Sk∑noma memory, since I know that my death will come Classically, the term is used to idensoon.” The terms “body” and “death” are variatify “the dead body of a man or tions on the term for tent and only appear in the animal.” This term only appears in the New New Testament here and in Acts 7:43, 46. The Testament in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:43 and 7:46, and in 2 Peter 1:13-14. In 2 Peter term suggests a recognition that life is transitory. the “tent” is a metaphor for the “body,” as What Peter thinks is “right” is to “refresh your seen in the construction in 1:14, where the memory,” even as he ponders his approaching term is paired with ajpovqesi~ [apothesis], death. As we have seen, 2 Peter is intent on prowhich “refers . . . to putting off of a garment” as a description of death. viding things to remember: the heart of the Wilhelm Michaelis, “skhnhv, skh`no~, skhvnwma, gospel (1:1-2), the power and promises of God skhnovw, ejpisknovw, kataskhnovw, skhnophgiva, (1:3-4), the need for a growing faith that leads to skhnopiov~” TDNT 7:383–84. moral character (1:5-9), and the “call and election” (1:10). Now Peter gets personal. Between his life “in this body [tent]” and the time when he will “fold up his tent” and die, he wants to instill a lively memory of his life and teaching in the minds of his readers. [Sk∑noma] Peter claims that he will die “soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me” (1:14). The Johannine tradition includes two places where Jesus says something to Peter about his

312

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

death. In 13:36-38 “Simon Peter” asks Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replies, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now; but Image Not Available you will follow me afterward.” due to lack of digital rights. Then we find Simon Peter’s Please view the published brash promise to “lay down commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below. [his] life” for Jesus, only to be rebuked by Jesus and hear the prediction that “before the cock crows, you will have Georges de La Tour (1593–1652). Denial of St. Peter. Musee des Beaux-Arts, Bordeaux, denied me three times.” The France. (Credit: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY) second reference comes in the epilogue of the Gospel of John, 21:18-19, where the risen Christ “indicate[s] the kind of death by which [Simon Peter] would glorify God.” Given our assessment that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphon, it is unlikely that the writer would rely upon part of the Petrine tradition that cast Peter in an unfavorable light, as is the case with John 13:36-38.6 The claim, therefore, that “our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me” (1:14) that I soon will die seems to be an allusion to John 21:18-19.7 Peter’s testament and farewell concludes with the promise, “I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (1:15). The verse contains the third and final references to death and memory, the ideas that have shaped the testament. Neyrey notes that Peter’s impending death, “departure,” is exodus, and he pairs the term with the “entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:11). He writes, “Just as one ‘puts off ’ the tent of the flesh . . . and ‘puts on’ immortality, so one experiences an exodos from this dwelling and an eisodos into a new kingdom. The heightened language used to describe death as a passage . . . serves to give greater value to the richness of the promises of God for a future life which will come with the Parousia of Christ.”8 Now the “these things” of v. 12—which gathered up vv. 3-11— are compounded by the future memory of Peter’s death with the repetition of “these things” in v. 15. The letter is the promissory note that the community of faith may draw upon as they continue their journey of faithful thinking and faithful living. Denial of St. Peter

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

313

The First Three Denials and Defenses, 1:16–2:3b

Bauckham sees two literary devises that frame 2 Peter 1:16–2:3b. First there is a chiasm that includes 1:16-18 and emphasizes the importance of the apostles, followed by 1:19-21, which establishes the importance of the prophetic tradiChiasm tions in the Old Testament. Then there The chiasm is a literary devise employed by clasis an exposition in 2:1a about the false sical and biblical authors that creates an prophets in the Old Testament, followed argument or illustration that demonstrates the relationship between related or opposing themes. The term by an explicit warning about false derives from the Greek letter chi (C). A chiastic structure teachers in Peter’s audience in 2:1b-3. moves from the upper left (A) of the letter to the lower The chiasm develops an A-B-B-A strucleft (B), to the lower right (B, again), before moving to the ture with the first two elements (1:16-18 upper right (A, again). The chiasm may be simple, with only four points, or complex, with multiple points along and 1:19-21) combining the integrity of the way. The movement from A to A also is called a “ring the apostles and prophets, and the construction.” last two elements (2:1a and 2:1b-3) In 2 Pet 1:16–2:3b the chiasm takes its most simple linking false prophets and false teachers. form. First there is an assertion about the true teaching of the apostles (A1), followed by an assertion about the OT Bauckham notes, too, that “this prophets (B1). The integrity of the OT prophets is constructure may be reinforced by trasted with the false OT prophets (B2) and the false an inclusio formed by sesophismenois teaching (A2) of Peter’s opponents. In the construction, mythois exakolouth∑santes in 1:16 and A1 and B1 indicate the ideas of true apostles and prophets, while B1 and A2 indicate the ideas of the false exakolouth∑sousin . . . plastois logois in prophets and the false teachers. C (chi) marks the spot 2:2-3.9 [Chiasm] [Inclusio] Denial and Defense of the Parousia: The First Challenge, 1:16-18 Certainly there is no more exciting paragraph than this one in 2 Peter. Too, it must be one of the most challenging passages in all the New Testament. In only three sentences it rejects a mythic foundation for Christian eschatology and claims an eyewitness report of the transfiguration, with the added claim that the transfiguration not only was the revelation of the identity of Jesus as the Christ, but also a confirmation of the promised “coming” of Christ at the end of time. Implicit in v. 16 is the charge Peter’s opponents leveled against him that he

where the reader can see the contrast between what is true and what is false.

Inclusio The inclusio is a literary device characterized by the repetition of a word or phrase (or similar words and phrases) to mark the beginning and end of the treatment of a particular theme. In that way the inclusio represents a pair of verbal parentheses that set limits on a discussion. In Mark 4 the parable of the soils opens with “Listen!” and ends with “Let anyone with ears to hear listen.” The repetition of “listen” at the beginning and end of the parable helps the hearer or reader focus upon the meaning of the parable as a metaphor for receptivity. An inclusio may only enclose a few lines or a paragraph, or it may be extended over a much longer block of text. In 2 Peter there is an obvious inclusio that begins at 1:16 with “cleverly devised myths” (sesophismenos mythos exakolouth∑santes) and ends at 2:3a with “deceptive words” (exakolouth∑sousin . . . plastois logois).

314

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

Mythos (“myth”) Although the origin of mythos is debated, the basic meaning seems to be “thought.” If the thought is unexpressed, it remains an idea; once expressed, thoughts become words, sayings, and stories. Because words have different references, mythos came to be distinguished from a word (logos) that referred to facts, especially narratives rooted in history. According to Stählin, the New Testament use of mythos is quite “unequivocal.” He adds, “The only occurrences of the term are in negative statements (1 Tm. 1:4; 4:7; Tt. 1:14; 2 Pt. 1:16; and in sense 2 Tm. 4:4). There obviously is a complete repudiation mu`qo~ [ mythos]” (781). 2 Pet 1:16-21 is the only New Testament passage to use mythos outside of the Pastorals. The reference “is to the eschatological proclamation of the apostles. This is grounded upon an anticipatory view of the glory of the returning Lord which was granted to them . . . [by] experience . . . [and] not merely on the Mount of Transfiguration” (784). Further, for Jewish, Christian, and later writers, mythos eventually comes to be seen as the complete opposite of truth (al∑theia). Stählin asserts, “The antithesis between myth and truth . . . takes on a new depth in the NT. . . . The NT could not say a word or history contained truth if it has nothing in common with reality” (785–86).

had resorted to “cleverly designed myths” in proclaiming “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Mythos (“myth”)] Only here in the New Testament do we find such a claim. [James Wm. McClendon, Jr., on “Myth” in Christian Theology]

In the introduction I noted that Peter’s opponents appear to reflect convictions derived from the Greek philosopher, Epicurus;10 they directed their rejection of myths toward Peter’s apostolic preaching about the “power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Peter flatly rejects the charge. [Excerpt of Epicurus’s Letter to Herodotus] Peter’s defense of the “coming” (Parousia) of Christ is the core of the letter. The coming of Christ directly concerns two of the five apologetic and polemical sections of the letter (1:16-18 and 3:3-7). Two other of the five sections address divine judgment as Gustav Stählin, “mu`qo~,” TDNT 4:762–69, 781–86. a corollary of the Parousia (2:1-10a and 3:8-13). The remaining section is a defense of prophecy and a rejection of false prophets (1:19-21–2:3a).11 [Parousia] Peter’s defense rests upon his claim that “we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.” The obvious reference here is to the transfiguration, but even casual attention notices that there are significant differences between Peter’s “eyewitness” account and the way the transfiguration is described in the Synoptic Gospels. Absent from Peter’s account are the specific presence of James and John and the appearance of Moses and Elijah. Only the Gospel of Luke specifically relates “glory” to the narrative. None of the Synoptic Gospels mention “the Majestic Glory.” While all of the Synoptic Gospels report the divine voice, only Matthew comes close to recording the divine voice that Peter says “we ourselves

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a James Wm. McClendon, Jr., on “Myth” in Christian Theology What is the proper place of myth in Christian theology? Already as the New Testament period drew to a close, the mythic impulse of old Greece came washing in upon the young Christian movement. As early as the later New Testament books, it became necessary to resist that influence. . . . Of course the word “myth” is used today in a myriad ways, many of them innocuous. . . . I believe, however, that when two particular senses of “myth” are combined, the result is a powerful and perverse tendency in present-day theology. For one writer “myth” may be used to mean a story of the gods (or of God). If this stood alone, it would appear that the entire Bible is (as a matter of definition) “mythic,” and if that is all that is claimed, no harm is done. On the other hand, “myth” sometimes means a story of events outside our time and space, in “another world” . . . . If the Bible is in this second sense a mythical Book, it cannot be a historical one. . . . Again, this is

315

a harmless claim if it merely notes that some biblical stories seem to have no earthly referent. But when the two senses are combined and in combination applied to the central biblical narrative, then the Bible, to the extent that its account of Jesus is mythical, can speak of God only at the cost of being unable to speak of history. Thus it will be unable to make any sense of God’s historical involvement with Jesus of Nazareth. If incarnation is in this double sense a myth, the historical model is helplessly unable to answer [the underlying question], “What right has Jesus to be absolute Lord?” because such an understanding of the historical Jesus is necessarily mythical—and thus outside history itself. In sum, the mythic Jesus, if divine, is not historical (and therefore not incarnate), while Jesus, if historical, is not mythical and in these terms not divine. Case closed. James Wm. McClendon, Jr., Systematic Theology: Doctrine (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994) 260–61.

heard.” Finally, Peter says his experience happened “on the holy mountain,” yet the Synoptic Gospels do not associate the mountain as a holy place. How should we understand the transfiguration in its Gospel and Petrine settings? First, we should not hold Peter to the standards of the Gospels (even the Gospels have variations in their narratives). Neither should we assume that the transfiguration is used in the same way in the Gospels Excerpt of Epicurus’s Letter to Herodotus The greatest anxiety of the human mind and in 2 Peter. The Gospels include the narraarises through the belief that the heavenly tives as a way to confirm the messianic identity bodies are blessed and indestructible, and that at of Jesus by linking the reports of the divine the same time they have volition and actions and voice at the baptism to the echo of the divine causality inconsistent with this belief; and through voice’s baptismal pronouncement at the trans- expecting or apprehending some everlasting evil, figuration. Peter has a much more expansive either because of the myths, or because we are in dread of the mere insensibility of death, as if it had goal. For Peter the transfiguration not only to do with us; and through being reduced to this looks back to the baptism narratives, but it state not by conviction but by a certain irrational serves to identify Jesus as the Christ, and it also perversity, so that, if men do not set bounds to their serves to “prove” the connection between Jesus terror, they endure as much or even more intense anxiety than the man whose views on these and the apostolic teaching of “the power and matters are quite vague. But mental tranquility coming” of Jesus at the end of the age (cf. means being released from all these troubles and 2 Pet 3:3-7). The identity of Jesus as the Christ cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest has been accepted, perhaps even by Peter’s and most important truths. “Letter to Herodotus,” opponents. What is disputed is whether Jesus Epicurus, http://www.epicurus.net/en/herodotus.html.

316

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

Parousia In its general meaning, Parousia indicates “presence” or an “appearance.” In Hellenism, the term developed a technical use to indicate the visit of a ruler or the presence of the gods, such as at cultic festivals. Oepke points out that early Christianity also developed a technical understanding of the term as a reference to “Jesus who has come already as the One who is still to come” (865). Popular understanding of Parousia as the return of Christ is foreign to the New Testament but prevalent in later Christian writings. “The ‘coming’ of Christ in Messianic glory seems to have made its way into primitive Christianity with Paul,” asserts Oepke (865). The term also becomes important

in 2 Peter, where it is used three times (1:16; 3:4, 12). In 2 Peter, doubts about the Parousia require reinterpretation. “Believers should hasten toward the parouiva th`~ tou` qeou` . . . hJmevra, 3:12” (Parousia t∑s tou theou h∑mera =“the coming of the day of God”) (869). Parousia is the “point where history is mastered by God’s eternal rule. The significance of the NT parousia is that the tension between non-fulfillment and fulfillment, between concealment and manifestation, between faith and sight, should be resolved, and that the decisive contribution towards this has already been made in Christ” (870). Albrecht Oepke, “parousiva, pareimi,” TDNT 5:859–60, 865–70.

Christ will come in power as judge. Peter’s testimony is consistent with the technical meaning of Parousia that emerged in the early church, that “Jesus [is the one] who has come already and the One who is still to come.”12 [Gospel Parallels of Transfiguration] How, too, shall we understand the parts of the transfiguration tesThe Transfiguration timony that are unique to Peter’s version? The claim to be an “eyewitness” (along with other unnamed apostles) who both saw and heard evidence of Jesus “receiv[ing] honor and glory from God the Father” have, according to Neyrey, the force of a “forensic defense mounted on behalf of the Parousia prophecy.”13 In a contemporary idiom, Peter takes the stand as an expert witness. References to the “majesty” of Jesus at the transfiguration, and that he “received honor and glory from God the Father[,] . . . the Majestic Glory,” narrow the distinction between Jesus and God.14 “Glory” (doxa) is a curious term. In the classical period it meant Raphael (1483–1520). The Transfiguration (detail), upper part with Christ, 1518–1520. “opinion” or “reputation”; by the [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a Gospel Parallels of Transfiguration Mark 9:2-8 Matthew 17:1-8 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.” And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, “Rab-bi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

317

Luke 9:28-36 Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah,” not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.

New Testament period “it denotes ‘divine and heavenly radiance,’ the ‘loftiness and majesty’ of God, and even the ‘being of God.’”15 It is clear that Peter intends to equate the “majesty” of Jesus with the “Majestic Glory” of God. The “holy mountain,” as Kraftchick notes, “likely reflects Psalm 2:6, where Zion is referred to as ‘the holy hill.’”16 The psalm is one of the important coronation psalms in the Old Testament that later comes to be a messianic psalm. Psalm 2 is the source behind the baptismal pronouncements in the Synoptic Gospels (“You are” [in Mark and Luke] and “This is” [in Matthew] “my son”) that is echoed in the transfiguration narratives.

318

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

Baptism of Christ

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Baptism of Christ. Relief from the portal. 12th C. Romanesque. Zeno, Verona, Italy. (Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY)

In 1:16-18 Peter mounts a defense of the first denial of the Parousia by his opponents. He offers an eyewitness account that refutes the claim that he has used “cleverly designed myths” and, by allusion, ties the “majesty . . . honor and glory” of Jesus Christ to the rich tradition of messianic hope. In the end, then, Peter extends messianic hope to eschatological hope for the “power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Denial and Defense of Prophecy: The Second Challenge, 1:19-21 Often this passage has been used to support a version of the authority of Scripture. A close reading, however, shows that Peter primarily is focused upon defending the integrity of prophecy and, more specifically, a proper interpretation of prophecy. At the time of the writing of 2 Peter, issues of canon and therefore the authority of Scripture had not yet become a primary concern for the church. Only with Marcion’s work in the middle of the second century would those issues rise to the level of critical consideration.17 It is, of course, appropriate for later readers of the New Testament to use 2 Peter as they argue the bases for claiming the authority of Scripture, but it is not appropriate to assume that their interest in defending Scripture was what was on Peter’s mind. The defense of prophecy and its interpretation is part of the larger argument that Peter mounts in 1:16–2:3b as he moves from the integrity of the apostles and prophets and denounces false prophets and false teachers. In 1:16-18 Peter relied upon apostolic authority—and his own eyewitness experience of the Transfiguration. Now he is constrained to defend prophecy against his opponents who besmirched Peter’s teaching of the Parousia. Implicit in v. 20 is the charge against Peter by his opponents, namely that Peter was guilty of an idiosyncratic interpretation of prophecy. What we wish we knew are the specifics of the charge.

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

319

Which prophecies of Scripture had Peter used to teach the Parousia? How do those prophecies make “the prophetic message more fully confirmed,” as v. 19 claims? Craddock suggests that “from their prior instruction the readers know to which prophecy he refers. We are the ones who do not know.”18 In the face of not knowing, Craddock mentions the wide use of Daniel 7:13-14 by New Testament writers to relate “the coming of the son of Man” to the Jesus story. He expresses his “own guess— and that is all it is—is Psalm 2. . . . The word confirmed in prophecy is that which was stated in verses 17-18, the Transfiguration story. There reference was made to the holy mountain (Psalm 2:6) and the voice from heaven quotes Psalm 2:7.”19 Either passage makes sense. Apocalyptic passages in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 13 and par.) rely upon the Daniel text. For the internal argument in 2 Peter, however, Psalm 2 is an obvious choice. Now we can take up v. 19’s claim that “we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The construction is “bebaioteron . . . logon,” which specifically is the confirmation of the prophetic word “as it shows itself to be grounded in an event.”20 The construction is particularly significant in light of 1:16-18 where Peter refuted the claim that his teaching of the Parousia was a “cleverly devised myth.” As an eyewitness to the Bebaios event of the transfiguration, which was an In general usage bebaios means something “firm” as in “having inner solidity.” A more abstract use experience he shared with other apostles, of the term suggests something is “sure,” “reliable,” or he doubly refutes the claim of his oppo“certain.” nents that he was using a myth. [Bebaios] According to Schlier, “bevbaio~ is often found with refThe rest of v. 19 is a bit of flowery rheterence to lovgo~ as a way to indicate that the logos “rests on an insight into things and grants insight” (600). oric rooted in allusions to Old Testament The New Testament reflects the general usage. “In 2 Pt. metaphors. Peter urges his readers to “be 1:19 the profhtikov~ lovgo~ is bevbaio~ . . . not in so attentive to” the “prophetic message” “as far as it maintains an insight, but in so far as it shows itself to a lamp shining in a dark place, until to be grounded in an event” (602). the day dawns and the morning star rises Heinrich Schlier, “bevbaio~, bebaiovw, bebaiwsi~,” TDNT 1:600–602. in your hearts.” Psalm 119:105 says that “your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path”; perhaps Peter has that image in mind. Neyrey reads “until the day dawns” as an anticipation of Peter’s phrases “day of judgment” in 2:9 and 3:7, “day of the Lord” in 3:10, and “day of God” in 3:12. He offers a flowing interpretation of the metaphors of the lamp and the day: The “disciples guide themselves by a lesser light (lamp) at night,

320

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

Oil Lamp

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Oil lamp with depiction of the Good Shepherd. 3rd C. From Florentius. Skulpturensammlung und Museum fuer Byzantinische Kunst, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany. (Credit: Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz/Art Resource, NY)

until the full light of day (the sun) arises. The lamp is the prophecy of the Lord’s Parousia and God’s day of judgment, which guides us during a time of darkness.”21 Later, in 2 Peter 3:10-13, the Parousia is described in sweeping cosmic terms: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

There the hints of cosmic upheaval and renewal suggested in 2 Peter 1:19b are fully expressed. Kelly finds all of v. 19, but especially v. 19b, “highly instructive for the light it throws on the writer’s picture of the End. . . . [Peter’s] language betrays the beginnings of an attempt to give eschatology a personal and even psychological orientation. The Parousia is conceived of as having a transforming effect in the hearts of faithful believers”22 in ways that are consistent with final consummation of all creation. Finally, with regard to 2 Peter 1:19, we must consider “the morning star” (phøsphoros). The term literally means “light bearer,” which appears in Latin as “Lucifer.” The Greeks and Romans knew the morning star as Venus, which, as Witherington points out (citing Cicero), “precedes the sun”23 rather than rising after dawn. “We should not puzzle for long about it because Numbers 24:17 [‘a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel’] . . . seems to be in the background here.”24 Peter’s opponents had accused him of using “myths” (1:16). As noted above in our summary of the larger argument found in 2 Peter 1:16–2:3b, the second charge against Peter was that he was guilty of an idiosyncratic interpretation of prophecy. In vv. 20-21

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

that charge is answered succinctly: there are no private, personal interpretations of prophecy; prophecy is not an expression of human will; and prophecy originates with God. Against the claim that his interpretation of prophecy is idiosyncratic, Peter claims that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (v. 20b). Neyrey notes that “the issue . . . is not the source of prophecy, but its interpretation” and develops the idea by saying that “group-oriented culture can illuminate how a correct interpretation can be known.”25 The “group orientation” is precisely what we find in v. 20b. Peter already has defended his teaching of the Parousia through eyewitness reports and tradition (vv. 16-18). Now he appeals to both of those as a rebuttal that his teaching of the Parousia is idiosyncratic. Of course we must note that Peter’s opponents could make a similar claim. They, too, have a “group-oriented culture” that affirms a different tradition. The Epicurean ethos was a well-established way of interpreting reality. The opponents lack the eyewitnesses to affirm their claims, but how could they call upon eyewitnesses to report what they believed was not historical? Peter’s claim that “no prophecy ever came by human will” (v. 21a) already has been demonstrated in vv. 16-17 where Peter emphasizes that the divine voice at the transfiguration affirmed the “majesty” when Jesus “received honor and glory from God the Father.” Still, the argument is tenuous. Who is to say that a prophecy comes from human will or divine will? Davids cites Deuteronomy 18:20 as a way to validate prophecy: “But any prophet who speaks in my name a word . . . that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.”26 The passage continues: “If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The issue is unresolved. The open-endedness of prophetic verification means that the confirmation of a prophetic pronouncement always waits for a future confirmation. Peter has laid the foundation for his apostolic and prophetic teaching of the Parousia, but the final proof will have to wait. The Parousia has not come, but in the transfiguration Peter finds anticipatory evidence that it will come. Peter’s argument rests upon past experience and tradition and yet yearns for the future confirmation of the prophecy rooted in the divine voice (see 1:17).

321

322

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

Peter’s defense of prophecy and its proper interpretation concludes with the straightforward assertion that “no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (v. 21). Bauckham draws attention to the verb pherø that is used twice in this verse (and also in v. 17 to indicate the source of the heavenly voice at the transfiguration). In an attempt to capture the intent of the verb, he translates the phrases in v. 21, “because prophecy never came [∑nexth∑] by the impulse of man, but men impelled [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”27 Prophecy, then, does not come from human will, but from the Holy Spirit. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that impels true prophets to speak an authentic word from God. Thus, “the words at the Transfiguration came from God, [and are] comparable to [Peter’s] concern here to stress that the words of OT prophecy also came from God.”28 Denial and Defense of “the Master”: The Third Challenge, 2:1-3a This short paragraph functions two ways in Peter’s extended argument. First it brings a close to the chiasm and inclusio noted above. The correlations of apostles and prophets with false prophets and false teachers are completed in these verses. The key The Rebellious Slave terms, sesophismenos mythos exakolouth∑santes in 1:16 and exakolouth∑sousin . . . plastois logois in 2:2-3 form a set of verbal parentheses that binds together the passage from 1:16–2:3b. In 2:1-3b we also have an introduction to the next section of Peter’s argument that will demonstrate the certainty of judgment and boldly will denounce the false teachers. (In our next chapter we will explore these themes.) Peter claims that the “false teachers . . . will even deny the Master who bought them” (2:1). “The Master” is a rare designation for Christ, but it is consistent with the frequent designation of apostles and followers as “servants” or “slaves.” See, for example, the salutations in Romans, Philippians, and 2 Peter where Paul, Paul and Timothy, and Peter are called “slaves.” Christ is the Master who has “purchased” the freedom of his followers. The phrase, “the Master who Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564). The Rebellious Slave. 1513–1516. Marble, Louvre, bought them” is thus a reference to the redemptive Paris, France. [Credit: Picture by Hay Kranen / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-self)] work of God in Christ.

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

Second Peter 2:1-2 also raises the ominous note of apostasy, both in relation to the “false teachers” and to the “many [who] will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned.” Peter already has concluded that the false teachers are apostate. Their denial of the Master will bring “swift destruction upon themselves” (cf. 2 Pet 2:15, 20-21). A discussion of the reality and threat of apostasy in 2 Peter will be reserved for the next chapter.

323

Cultural Icons

Marilyn Monroe, 1926–1962

CONNECTIONS

(Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD US not renewed)

Every generation of every era produces figures who grow larger than life because of their associations, accomplishments, and influence. From those clusters of standouts emerge a few people who become enshrined in cultural memory as icons or, as our contemporary culture calls them, superstars. The few genuine superstars achieve an almost mythic status as they are remembered and lionized for who they were and what they did. American culture has Elvis Presley, “The King of Rock such icons who not only stand out, but who transcend our ’n’ Roll,” 1935–1977 common standards of excellence. For example, in politics (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD US not renewed) we have had, as of 2009, forty-four presidents. By any reckoning, only three or four have become icons: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. In business and industry, few have risen to the level of Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, or John D. Rockefeller. Even the worlds of entertainment and sports provide examples of cultural icons. Marilyn Monroe and Clark Gable, Elvis Presley and Janis Joplin, and Paul Robeson and Maria Callas elevated Willie Mays, the quintessential film, popular music, and classical vocal performance to “five tool” baseball player, b. heights few entertainers will ever approach. And what about 1931. Willie Mays, Johnny Unintas, and Oscar Robertson, each of (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD New York World-Telegram & Sun) whom, respectively, put an indelible mark on baseball, football, and basketball? In the early church a similar thing happened. Jesus had twelve apostles and more disciples (that is, followers) than we can know. Out of the apostles, Peter and John became the superstars, along with the “untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8) apostle, Paul. The early

324

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

church superstars were valued for their associations with Jesus, for significant work in nurturing the aborning church, and for their influence that spread during their lives and endured after their deaths. It is not surprising that the New Testament enshrined their influence and memory in twenty-one or so of the canonical works of literature, even though some of the works that bear their names were cautiously, or suspiciously, regarded well into the fourth century. And, we should add, there is a raft of literary works among the noncanonical literature of the early church that claim the memory and influence of Peter, John, and Paul. In 2 Peter, contemporary readers glimpse the iconic or superstar status of Peter in the early church. The letter builds upon Peter’s “testament” (2 Pet 1:12-15) as a way to advance Peter’s influence and memory, and as a way to preserve the essential gospel teachings that were associated with Peter. The letter is bare bones. It promotes the conviction that Jesus was the Christ, God’s Son. It promotes, too, the conviction that the followers of Jesus should cultivate a lifestyle and character that are consistent with the gospel. And it fiercely defends the apostolic teaching that the Christ who came in Jesus of Nazareth will come again in glorious power of the Parousia. Second Peter also gives contemporary readers a glimpse of the early church that is not much different from the church of the twenty-first century, or, for that matter, the church through two millennia. The church of 2 Peter was divided over issues of ethics and doctrine. It appears that they all confessed that Jesus was the Christ, but they had different interpretations about what that meant. That sounds a lot like the twenty-first-century church! In Second Peter the author is most concerned about the apostolic teaching of the Parousia, the coming of Christ as judge at the end of the age. He is constrained to defend his understanding of the apostolic teaching against popular opinions—that he regards as false teaching—and to argue that the teaching of Parousia firmly is rooted in the prophecy from the Old Testament. Peter supplements the prophetic teachings of the Old Testament with his version of the transfiguration, which, in the letter, takes the force of an eyewitness account of the event. Contemporary readers who take up 2 Peter need to be prepared to engage both the ethical and theological nuances of the gospel. Doing so they also should remember that 2 Peter is not merely a

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a

relic of history that provides answers to important questions. Second Peter is, at least, a way to model healthy debate among people in the church who have different takes on the implications of the gospel. We might wish that we had at our disposal a document from Peter’s opponents that is as carefully constructed as 2 Peter, but we don’t. We only have one side of the debate. As a result, we should weigh the arguments and the implied counterarguments of the letter honestly and respectfully. That is, after all, what 2 Peter attempts to do. At the same time, contemporary readers of 2 Peter should recognize Peter’s resolve. He does not take a “whatever” attitude. He believes that lifestyle and doctrine matter and, therefore, is willing to press his convictions.

Notes 1. For further discussion, see the introduction. 2. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is the most developed collection of works in the genre. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 1983) and The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2: Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday, 1985) are excellent resources. The texts also are available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0801.htm. 3. Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 102. 4. “Truth” (al∑theia) is a transparent synonym for the gospel. Of 2 Peter 1:12’s use of the term, Rudolph Bultmann says, “ajlhvqeia [al∑theia] is simply Christianity,” TDNT 1:244. 5. Günther Harder, “sthrivzw, ejpiothrivzw, sthsijgmov~, ajsthvs ikto~,” TDNT 7:656–57. 6. We will return to this idea below in the context of how 2 Peter uses the tradition of the transfiguration as a way to refute the claim of Peter’s opponents that he has “follow[ed] cleverly devised myths” (1:16-18) to promote his teaching of the Parousia. 7. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word Books, 1983) 199–201, arrives at the same conclusion. Bauckham also considers some noncanonical passages that relate to predictions of Peter’s death. 8. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 167. 9. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 236. 10. For further discussion of the opponents, see the introduction. I noted that Peter’s opponents may not have been doctrinaire Epicureans so much as they were influenced by the popular understandings of the Epicurean philosophy.

325

326

2 Peter 1:12–2:3a 11. Note that I treat 2 Pet 2:1-3a as a “seam” in the argument that overlaps at the end of the “third challenge” and the beginning of the exposition on the “reality of judgment.” 12. Albrecht Oepke, “parousiva, pareimi,” TDNT 5:865. 13. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 176. The term epoptes, translated as “eyewitness,” only appears in 2 Pet 1:16. The term also carries “a note of authority” as in the case of “composers of history who write of what they have firsthand experience.” 14. Trinitarian theologians will chafe, again, but they should not. See the exposition, above, on 1:1. Peter sees the transfiguration as a broader commissioning of Jesus to include the role of judge with the future “coming of the day of God” (3.12). 15. Gerhard Kittel, “dokevw, dovxa, doxavxw, sundoxavxw, e[ndoxo~, ejndoxavxw, paravdoxo~” TDNT 2:233–37. 16. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 112. 17. For further discussion of the issues of canon, see the introduction. 18. Fred B. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude (IBC: Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) 106. 19. Ibid. 20. Heinrich Schlier, “bevbaio~, bebaiovw, bebaiwsi~,” TDNT 1:602. 21. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 183. 22. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1969) 323. 23. Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2 (Downer’s Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 332; the citation comes from Cicero’s De natura deorum 2.20.53. 24. Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter, 332. Witherington does note that Num 24:17 is regarded as a messianic passage. It would have been helpful, too, had Witherington mentioned that Numbers is heavily influenced by the priestly traditions of the exilic period as a way to clarify the messianic reading of the passage. Even more helpful would have been an acknowledgment that Num 22–24 is home to the Balaam oracles and that Balaam is the speaker in 24:17. In 2 Pet 2:15-16 Peter uses Balaam as an example of a false prophet who “was rebuked for his own transgression.” The rebuke—which we will take up below—comes before the oracle in Num 24:17. The Balaam oracles trace something of a transition of Balaam from being a false prophet to becoming an authentic prophet. If Witherington is correct about the allusion to Num 24:17 in 2 Pet 1:19—and we think that he is—then some disclosure of the context of Num 22–24 would have been helpful. 25. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 182. 26. Davids, Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (The Pillars New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2006) 213. Davids relies upon the NIV, but here I have cited the NRSV. 27. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233. 28. Ibid.

The Certainty of Judgment 2 Peter 2:1-22

COMMENTARY In the introduction I briefly examined the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter.1 We noted that 2 Peter 2 depends heavily upon Jude. Comparing Jude and 2 Peter, we find that Peter edits out allusions to the aftermath of the exodus (Jude 5), the sensational report of “the archangel Michael contend[ing] with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses” (Jude 92), references to Cain and Korah (Jude 11), and a prophecy of eschatological judgment (Jude 14-15) from 1 Enoch, an apocalyptic work popularly read and used in the early church, including its use by the authors of the Gospel of Mark (13:24-27) and the Gospel of Matthew (25:31-46). Seeing what parts of Jude are included in, and augmented in, 2 Peter raises the question, “Why these parts and not others?” Peter keeps God’s punishment of “the angels when they sinned”; God “cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment”(2:4). He adds an allusion to Noah (2:5). He also keeps the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:6) but expands the story with a reference to the rescue of Lot as a way to demonstrate that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” (2:7-9). Finally, Peter preserves the Balaam reference (2:15-16). Why these parts of Jude and not the others? Kraftchick’s assessment (already cited in the introduction) is that “2 Peter refashioned Jude’s examples from 1 Enoch and The Testament of Moses because they were obscure to his audience or because they were too similar to the myths he had denied using (1.16).”3 There is no doubt that a story about the archangel Michael having a spat with the devil over the corpse of Moses sinks to the standards of “myth” that Peter rejects. The use of material from 1 Enoch about “The Lord

328

2 Peter 2:1-22

. . . coming with ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment on all . . .” (Jude 14-15, which is quoted from 1 En. 1:9) is less certainly “mythic” by Peter’s definition. Watson has a different view, one that is more kind to Peter, based upon a rhetorical analysis. He defends the rhetorical Image Not Available wholeness of 2 Peter. Against those who due to lack of digital rights. see 2 Peter 2’s use of Jude as haphazard or Please view the published as part of a latter interpolation of a draft commentary or perform an Internet letter, Watson concludes, “1:20b–3:7 is search using the credit below. adequately explained as an original and integral part of 2 Peter.”4 With specific reference to why Peter used Jude the way he did, Watson writes, “It is easier to conceive that 2 Peter reworked [Jude] making it rhetorically more effective.”5 At the end of chapter 2, I noted that Ignaz Guenther (1725–1775). Saint Michael Defeating Satan. c. 1750. Polychrome limewood sculpture. Skulpturensammlung und Museum 2 Peter 2:1-3a functions two ways in fuer Byzantinische Kunst, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany. (Credit: Peter’s extended argument. First it brings a Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz/Art Resource, NY) close to the chiasm and inclusio I noted earlier.6 As I wrote in chapter 2, the correlations of apostles and prophets with false prophets and false teachers are completed in these verses. The key terms, sesophismenois mythos exakolouth∑santes in 1:16 and exakolouth∑sousin plastois logois in 2:2-3 form a set of verbal parentheses that binds together the passage from 1:16–2:3b. Second Peter 2:1-3b also gives us an introduction to the next section of Peter’s argument that will demonstrate the certainty of judgment and boldly denounce the false teachers.7 Now we turn to 2 Peter 2:1-3 as the introduction to an extended section that establishes scriptural proof of the reality of judgment. Saint Michael Defeating Satan

Scriptural Proof of the Reality of Judgment, 2:1-10a

In keeping with the argument from 1:20-21 “that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” Peter now offers more exam-

2 Peter 2:1-22

329

ples. He already has argued that his teaching of the Parousia conforms to a prophecy of scripture found in Psalm 2 and is confirmed by his eyewitness report of the transfiguration (1:16-18).8 Without developing that argument further, he shifts his attention to the certainty of judgment; in 2 Peter Parousia and judgment are two sides of a single coin. The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will confirm the “very great promises” (1:4) of God in Christ and will result in the judgment of those who “deny the Master” (2:1). Judgment of the False Teachers, vv. 1-3 The “false teachers” are “among you” (v. 1), Peter writes.9 It is a sobering claim that underscores the challenge Peter faces. His opponents are part of the community. Although they are insiders and, apparently, have considerable influence in the community, they teach an outsider’s doctrine. They “bring in Hairesis destructive opinions” (v. 1) that, in Peter’s The basic meaning of the term is “‘a assessment, depart from the core of apostolic choice’ . . . in the general sense of choice teaching. These “destructive opinions” are of a possibility, or even to an office.” The term takes one particular meaning “in Hellenism hairesis apøleias. Here we find the word “here[where] the predominant objective use of term sies,” a word that generally refers to a school of [denotes] “a. ‘doctrine’ and especially b. ‘school.’” thought but in polemical contexts comes to The effect of choosing a teacher, a teaching, and mean an idea that is contrary to what is therefore, a school of like thinkers demands “delimitation from other schools.” regarded as true. Heresy is more than a contrary Schlier notes, “The basis of the Christian opinion, however. “Heresy is,” as Whaley concept of ai[resi~ is to be found in the new sitobserves, “the perversion of truth. Unlike an uation created by the introduction of the Christian outright falsehood, heresy contains elements of ejkklhsiva [ekkl∑sia]. ?ejkklhsiva and ai[resi~ are material opposites. The latter cannot accept truth that make its error much more difficult to the former; the former excludes the later.” 10 detect.” [Hairesis] Heinrich Schlier, “ai[revomai, ai[resi~, ai[retikov~, Ironically, the “destructive opinions” will lead ai[retivzw, diairevw, diaivrwsi~” TDNT, 1:180–83. to the “swift destruction” (v. 1 uses the same word, apøleia, in each phrase) of the false teachers. The swiftness of their destruction should not be understood as a temporal reference but as an eschatological reference. As the letter develops, the term apøleia also will appear in 3:7 and 3:16. Taking in all four uses of apøleia in 2 Peter, we agree with David’s observation that “there is a double irony in [v. 1]. First their teachings are destructive to others, so destruction is coming upon them. Second, looking forward to ch. 3, they deny coming judgment . . . but in fact judgment will come upon them. One wonders whether the author smiled at his own black humor.”11 [Apollymi and Apøleia]

330

2 Peter 2:1-22

The false teachers not only promote “destructive opinions”; they model an immoral lifestyle. Peter describes the false teachers as “licentious,” greedy, and exploitative in vv. 2-3. Because we only have Peter’s characterization of his opponents and none of their teachings, we should be cautious in accepting at face value the charges brought against them. If the opponents are, as I Albrecht Oepke, “ajpovllumi, apwvleia, VApolluvw,v ” TDNT, suggested in the introduction,12 teachers influ1:394–97. enced by the popular ethos of Epicureanism,13 then we might have reason to see vv. 2-3 as caricatures of their position rather than an accurate report. Neyrey observes that “polemics in the ancient world, like most other forms of speech, Aselgeia were quite stereotypical. Hence, accusations of the Bauernfeind has observed that the sort made in 2:1-3a need to be seen less as actual apparent original meaning of the term is “license,” but it also may have been statements of what the author’s opponents did or said used figuratively “‘of the soul’ . . . (with than as projections of what their errors lead to.”14 Apollymi and Apøleia The basic meaning of the term is “to destroy or kill” as “in battle.” Figuratively the term may be applied to something that is “lost” (as the sheep, coin, and son in Luke 15). In the NT the term takes on an even more grave meaning, “eternal destruction.” apøleis “is a favourite word in 2 Peter,” appearing 2 Peter 2:1, 3; 3:7, 16.

u{bri~ [hybris ‘pride’]).’“ The term “in the NT” only appears in the “sensual sense of ‘voluptuousness’ or ‘debauchery.’” The term “characterizes Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:7) . . . [and] also heresy and apostasy (Jd. 4; 2 Pt. 2:2, 18)” where it also suggests “sexual excess.”

[Aselgeia]

Epicurus and those who followed his teachings did place a high emphasis upon “pleasure,” but the pleasure was not conceived in bald terms of sensuality and moral profligacy. Epicurus taught that authentic pleasure—which he understood to be “no trouble”—was rooted in a certain kind of reason Otto Bauernfeind, “ajsevlgeia,” TDNT, 1:490. rather than sensual experiences. Nonetheless, it is clear that some of Epicurus’s followers did understand his teaching as one of unbridled hedonism. [Six Teachings of Epicurus] In addition to the charge of “licentiousness” (vv. 2, 7, and 18) and the near-synonymous charges of “lust” (v. 10) and “dissipation” (v. 13),15 Peter accuses the false teachers of being greedy and practicing exploitation. Green draws attention to 1 Thessalonians 2:5 where Paul refutes charges of greed and exploitation against him: “We never came with words of flattery or with a pretext of greed.” “It is instructive to contrast” 2 Peter 3:3 and 1 Thessalonians 2:5, Green writes, “where Paul denies that he is a teacher . . . like the wandering sophists of the Graeco-Roman world, whose main concern was not truth, but success.”16 The contrast is helpful for two reasons. First, it broadens our glimpse of the early church to see that it was as vulnerable to charlatans as is the church in every era, including the twenty-first century. What the wag says about

2 Peter 2:1-22 Six Teachings of Epicurus These six teachings of Epicurus are excepted from Principal Doctrines: 1. A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness. 5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the person is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life. 8. No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves. 18. Pleasure in the body admits no increase when once the pain of want has been removed; after that it only admits of variation. The limit of pleasure in the mind,

331

however, is reached when we reflect on the things themselves and their congeners which cause the mind the greatest alarms. 20. The body receives as unlimited the limits of pleasure; and to provide it requires unlimited time. But the mind, grasping in thought what the end and limit of the body is, and banishing the terrors of futurity, procures a complete and perfect life, and has no longer any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless it does not shun pleasure, and even in the hour of death, when ushered out of existence by circumstances, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life. 30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when not gratified, though their objects are vehemently pursued, are also due to illusory opinion; and when they are not got rid of, it is not because of their own nature, but because of the person’s illusory opinion. Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, trans. Robert Drew Hicks, http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html.

greedy exploiters of welcoming church people, “The gospel calls some to do good and gives others an opportunity to do well,” has universal application. Second, the contrast underscores what we already have seen in 2 Peter, namely, that the recognized apostles were not immune to popular criticism. Second Peter 2:1-3 demonstrates the interrelatedness of theology and ethics. “The way of truth” that Peter says “will be maligned” (v. 2) is paved with stones of doctrine and lifestyle, or, stated more simply, it is paved by authentic words and deeds. It is not an eitheror; it is a both-and. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7), Jesus takes both the scribes and Pharisees to task for their respective onesidedness. The scribes emphasized words at the expense of deeds, while the Pharisees emphasized deeds at the expense of words. Jesus contends that the kingdom in its fullness pursues both words and deeds. Peter presses the same point. “The way of truth” (2:2, h∑ hodos t∑s al‘heias) is a succinct description of apostolic teaching,17 or, at least, “the Christian way of life which alone corresponds to divine revelation.”18 In the phrase, “the way of truth will be maligned,” Peter is less interested in exploring the content of “the way of truth” than he is in lamenting the fact that the false teachers, both by their doctrine and lifestyle, will lead others astray, and that the cumulative effect

332

2 Peter 2:1-22

of the false teachers and those who follow them will be the tarnishing of the image of the community. Second Peter 2:3b begins a single long sentence that is held together by a succession of conditional clauses, “if . . . then” (the “if ” appears in v. 4 and is repeated in vv. 5, 6, and 7; the “then” only is executed in v. 9). Like a lawyer prosecuting an appeal case before a jury, Peter prepares to call key witnesses from the biblical record who can support his claim that “Their Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794–1872). Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-3). Woodcut for “Die Bibel in Bildern.” [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] [the “false teachers” in v. 2:1] condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” Implicit in the claim must be the opponents’ teaching that God as judge is either “idle” or “asleep,” which is a rejection of Peter’s teaching about the certainty of judgment. In 2 Peter 3:3-7, and again in 3:8-13, Peter will explicitly return the charge of his opponents. For now he is content to allude to the famous contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18. In that story the false Elijah on Mount Carmel prophets—the prophets of Baal—performed histrionic acts before an altar prepared for a sacrifice with the intent to persuade their god to Image Not Available send the fire. After a due to lack of digital rights. morning-long appeal Please view the published was unanswered, “Elijah commentary or perform an Internet mocked them, saying search using the credit below. ‘Cry aloud! Surely he is a god; either he is mediating, or has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is Elijah on Mount Carmel. Fresco. c. AD 239. Synagogue, Dura Europos, Syria. (Credit: Art Resource, NY) Sermon on the Mount

2 Peter 2:1-22

asleep and must be wakened’” (v. 27). The allusion to Elijah’s taunt of the prophets of Baal, which turns out to be the prelude to the destruction of the false prophets on Mt. Carmel, uses the false teachers’ claims that Peter’s God is idle or asleep against them. The turn of the table is stunning. In the same way that Elijah will prove victorious, Peter reminds his readers that he, too, will be vindicated. Through the allusion, Peter renews the pronouncement of “condemnation . . . against them [the false teachers] long ago”; it still is in effect. And now comes the string of biblical witnesses. Judgment of the Angels, v. 4 The first of the three biblical witnesses appears to rely upon Genesis 6:1-4, according to Neyrey, because it “forms a unity with other examples from Genesis, Noah, and Lot.”19 More likely Genesis is a tertiary source that is embedded in a secondary source, 1 Enoch, that Peter discovered in Jude 6, his primary source. Craddock20 and Green21 both agree that Peter knew 1 Enoch, although Green is less confident than Craddock.22 Master of the Rebel Angels Bauckham,23 however, doubts that Peter knew 1 Enoch but is confident that Peter “followed Jude.” Jude 6 does have a clear allusion to Genesis 6:1-4: “And the angels who did not keep their proper dwelling,” followed by an allusion to 1 Enoch, “he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great Day.”24 The confusion that prompted our flurry of citations to Craddock, Green, and Bauckham is found in the comparison of Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. What is most alike in the two verses are the references to “chains” and “deepest darkness,” which depend originally upon 1 Enoch. What also is curious is that 2 Peter 2:4 uses the classical Greek term, Tartarus, rather than the Hellenistic Jewish term, Gehenna, as the place where the rebel angels are in “deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment.” Neyrey is less troubled by the confusion than many commentators (including this writer). Gathering up the levels of allusions in 2 Peter 2:4, he muses that “The use of an example readily recognized by Greeks and Jewish hearers seems calculated to appeal to Master of the Rebel Angels (14th C.). Louvre, common knowledge about divine judgment of the Paris, France. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, wicked. This suggests a pluralistic audience of Jew PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

333

334

2 Peter 2:1-22

Kosmos Sasse points out that the basic meaning of the term is “order,” and when used to designate the “world,” it “becomes one of the most important terms in Greek philosophy” to the degree that claims that kosmos is “the cosmic system in the sense of cosmic order.” In that sense, the Greek philosophers understood that the universe was a place of “order,” “a perfect unity,” and a place of “beauty.” Hellenistic Judaism softened the Greek philosophical ideals of order, perfection, and beauty, largely because “the Heb OT has no word for the universe.” New Testament uses of kosmos often mean “the sum of all created being,” but there is the conviction that “like all that is created, the kovsmo~” has only limited duration.” The kosmos is vulnerable to decay or corruption (as in 2 Pet 1:4) because “the world . . . is now estranged from its Creator and Lord.” And so, the New Testament moves toward an understanding of the kosmos as “the sum of the divine creation which has been shattered by the fall, which stands under the judgment of God, and in which Jesus Christ appears as the Redeemer.” Therefore, “when the kovsmo~ is redeemed, it ceases to be kovsmo~. The reconciled and redeemed world is no longer kovsmo~ aiw;n ou\to~ [kosmos aiøn outos = the eternal world]; it is basileiva tou` qeou` [basileia tou theou = kingdom of God].”

and Gentile, as well as an author familiar with and eager to employ pagan stories which reinforce the Bible.”25

Judgment of the Generation of Noah, v. 5 The second biblical witness Peter summons is “the ancient world” that bore the brunt of divine judgment. Already in 2 Peter 1:19b we glimpsed Peter’s wide vision of the Parousia and judgment as God’s final actions encompassing all creation. Later, in 2 Peter 3:10-13, the glimpse will become fully developed. Between the glimpse and the big picture Peter also puts an emphasis upon the thorough scope of God’s involvement with creation: the cosmos was not spared judgment. [Kosmos] While the goal of presenting three biblical witnesses to judgment is primary in this long sentence that covers vv. 3b-10, in v. 5 we have the first of two statements that God the judge also is God the redeemer. The examples of Noah (v. 5) and Lot (v. 7) Hermann Sasse, “kosmevw, kovsmo~, kovsmio~, kosmikov~,” TDNT anticipate the end of the sentence where we 3:868–74, 883–94. read, “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep God Locks the Ark the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” (v. 9). Although the “ancient world” in Noah’s generation is judged Image Not Available and destroyed, Noah, “a herald of due to lack of digital rights. righteousness, with seven others, Please view the published when [God] brought a flood on a commentary or perform an Internet world of the ungodly,” is saved. search using the credit below. Here Peter alludes to a tradition of “Noah as a preacher of repentance” that Neyrey calls a “commonplace in Jewish writGod Locks the Ark. Detail of one of 54 scenes from the Old and New Testament, from ings.”26 Bauckham also cites a “paliotto,” the decorated altar frontal. Carved ivory plaque. (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) traditions that see Noah as “the

2 Peter 2:1-22

335

eighth person” as a reflection of “the eschatological symbolism of the number eight [as] . . . new creation”; thus, “Noah, preserved from the old world to be the beginning of the new world after the Flood, is a type of faithful Christians who will be preserved from the present world to inherit the new world after the judgment.”27 Judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, vv. 6-10a The third biblical witness called before our imagined jury are the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The narratives in Genesis 18–19 describe the prelude to destruction, the destruction, and the aftermath. Only the destruction and its prelude figure in Peter’s argument. Peter summarizes the destruction in the phrase “by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction” (v. 6a). Sodom and Gomorrah were utterly destroyed by fire. Peter interprets the destruction as a proleptic “example of what is coming to the ungodly” (v. 6b). Following the model of the previous witness, Peter holds out Lot, as he did with Noah, as proof that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial” (v. 9a). Peter’s claim that Lot was “a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless” of his city (v. 7) relies upon the prelude to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:22-33, where Abraham is brave enough to argue with the Lord. Abraham’s argument attempts to determine how many “righteous” people would be needed before the Lord would stay his hand of judgment. The argument moves, by steps, from fifty to forty-five to forty to thirty to twenty to ten. In Lot and his Daughters Leaving Sodom the end, Abraham does not prevail; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is sealed. In the narrative Lot is saved, along with his wife (although in Image Not Available the departure from Sodom she, due to lack of digital rights. too, is destroyed) and his two Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet daughters. The Genesis story does search using the credit below. not claim that Lot is “righteous,” but that inference may be made on the basis of Abraham’s argument with the Lord. At best, Lot is hosGuido Reni (1575–1642). Lot and his Daughters Leaving Sodom, c. 1615–1616. Oil on canvas, National Gallery, London, Great Britain. (Credit: National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY)

336

2 Peter 2:1-22

pitable (see Ezek 16:49-50). Peter also seems to rely upon Ezekiel 9:4, according to Bauckham.28 The long sentence that began at v. 3b now comes to an end in v. 9. Relying upon the biblical evidence that “God did not spare the angels” (v. 4), “the ancient world” (v. 5), or “Sodom and Gomorrah” (v. 6), and noting that God “saved Noah” (v. 5) and “rescued Lot” (vv. 7-8), Peter closes his appeal to our imagined jury, saying, “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” Summary of the Reality of Judgment, vv. 9-10 In this closing appeal, Peter makes explicit what has been implied all along, that Parousia and judgment are two sides of a single coin. “The day of judgment” refers both to the Parousia and the beginning of the final judgment that was “pronounced against [the ungodly] long ago” (2:3b). In v. 10 Peter summarizes, too, his charge against the false teachers as those “who indulge their flesh in depraved lust,” which recalls 2 Peter 1:4, “the corruption that is in the world because of lust.” He also recalls the charge that the false teachers “even deny the Master” (2 Pet 2:1) with the statement they “despise authority.” Bold Denunciation of the Opponents, 2:10b-22

To this point, 2 Peter has been a reasoned defense of Parousia and judgment, balanced with polemics against the teaching and lifestyles of Peter’s opponents. The rest of chapter 2 moves to a more aggressive style of rhetoric that leaves behind reasoned apology and polemic of ideas and behaviors and becomes nothing less than personal attacks directed against the false teachers. The attacks are vicious in the ears of twenty-first-century readers. Craddock is correct in noting that this “rampage of rhetoric . . . [is] distasteful to some of us, especially those drilled since childhood in the old maxim, ‘If you cannot say anything good about someone, then say nothing at all.’”29 He goes on to observe that in Peter’s day “such speaking as we have here was a form of rhetoric . . . familiar to audiences of the time” and that “they may have found in it a measure of sober entertainment—assuming they were not the ones being denounced.”30

2 Peter 2:1-22

337

The attacks move in three phases. First the false teachers are branded with a series of descriptions of their extravagance. Next they are condemned as latter-day charlatans in the line of Balaam. Finally, they are excoriated as apostates. Beasts, Blots, and Blemishes, vv. 10b-14 Verses 10b-11 continue Peter’s penchant for using word pairs to drive home points. The false teachers are “bold and willful” and foolish enough to “slander the glorious ones . . . [who are] greater in might and power.” “Bold and willful” allow a wide array of synonyms such as headstrong, audaciously arrogant, brazenly self-important, and the like. The “glorious ones” probably refers to angelic beings, but the meaning is not clear. Bauckham reminds us that Jude 8-10 lies behind Peter’s words.31 In Jude the “glorious ones” are angels. The reference precedes Jude’s account of “the archangel Michael [contending] with the devil . . . about the body of Moses [without bringing] a condemnation of slander against him” (Jude 9). Bauckham speculates that Peter “did not know the story, and therefore he misunderstood the point . . . in the same way that modern commentators have misunderstood it.”32 Peter’s misunderstanding leads him to confuse the good angels and the bad angels that were prevalent in Hellenistic Jewish stories. Jude’s story about the archangel Michael shows that even an archangel knows how to show reserve when contending with a fallen angel, knowing that slander is not an effective weapon against a powerful foe. Peter seems clumsily to Satan in His Original Glory borrow a valid point—don’t slander celestial powers—and apply it to the false teachers as evidence of their audacious arrogance. The false teachers have Image Not denied the Master (2:1) and shown contempt for Available prophecy and the apostolic teaching (1:19-20). due to lack of digital Bauckham sorts through the confusion: “The most rights. Please view the plausible view is that in their confident immorality published commentary the false teachers were contemptuous of the demonic or perform an Internet powers. When they were rebuked for their immoral search using the credit below. behavior and warned of the danger of falling into the power of the devil and sharing his condemnation, they laughed at the idea, denying that the devil could William Blake (1757–1827). Satan in his Original have any power over them.”33 Glory: “Thou wast Perfect till Iniquity was found in The contemptuous, audacious arrogance of the Thee” (c. 1805). Tate Gallery, London, Great Britain. (Credit: Tate, London/Art Resource, NY) false teachers leads Peter to dehumanize them. The

338

2 Peter 2:1-22

are “like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed. They slander what they do not understand, and when those creatures are destroyed, they also will be destroyed, suffering the penalty for doing wrong” (vv. 12-13a). The “rampage of rhetoric” reaches a nadir in these verses. Even though Peter’s audience may have been accustomed to such vitriol (see above), twenty-first-century readers should flinch at the notion that false teachers were “born to be caught and killed.” Such rhetoric in our day has too often given permission to zealots to kill literally. We concede the point of Peter’s context, but we cannot affirm any application of his hot opinion. False teachers, irrational or not, driven by instinct or not, still keep their humanness. Rebuke them, yes. Argue the errors of their thinking and lifestyles, yes. Pave the way for their slaughter, no. In fairness to Peter, he is not suggesting that his readers take up cudgels against the false teachers. In v. 12 Peter lumps the beastly false teachers with the literal beasts who will be destroyed. Perhaps here is an echo of v. 5, the judgment of the “ancient world” in the time of Noah. The flood led to the destruction of beasts and humans and, for Peter, served as evidence of the judgment that will come at the Parousia. Peter is willing to wait for God’s judgment upon the world as a final purification that was prefigured in the flood; in that final judgment the beastly false teachers, too, will perish. The end of v. 12 and the beginning of v. 13, “they also will be destroyed, suffering the penalty for doing wrong,” does not capture the apparent word play in the original (en t∑ phthopa autøn kai phthap∑sontai adikoumenoi misthon adikias). Kraftchick offers an alternate translation that comes closer: “They shall be destroyed with the same destruction they have brought about.”34 The rest of vv. 13-14 makes clear what we have assumed all along: Peter’s opponents, the false teachers, are indeed participants in the community. Peter says of them, “They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation while they feast with you.” They “revel in the daytime” and “[revel] in their dissipation while they feast with you.” The “reveling” is a commentary on the hedonistic character of the opponents (h∑don∑ [“pleasure” in this passage] is the origin of the English term, “hedonism”). “While they feast with you” probably is a reference to the Lord’s Supper.35 Not only do the false teachers share the table of the Lord with the community; Peter also accuses

2 Peter 2:1-22

339

them of trolling for sexual conquests at the table. He says, “They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed.” These three short sentences disclose Peter’s exasperation H∑don∑ (“pleasure”) over the false teachers, including The word hJdonh [h∑don∑] derives from the same root as hJduv~ [h∑dys], “sweet,” “pleasant,” “delightful” . . . and their teaching, their lifestyles, and shares with this adj. the original sense of what is pleasant to the their very presence. “Accursed chilsenses. . . . dren!” Peter cries. Davids frames the Already in its earliest use . . . the term . . . bears the broader interjection pastorally, suggesting sense of a general “feeling of pleasure” or “enjoyment.” The development from the sensual to the psychical and then to the ethical . that Peter “is a pastor, and he is . . is often to be noted in the evolution of words and their meanupset by what he sees happening to ings. . . . unstable individuals in the commuFor the Greeks hJdonh, which affects life in so many ways, is . . nity.”36 The exclamation appears to . a problem, since on the one side it is something which is necessarily integrated into [life] and which essentially enriches it, while bring an end to the section. What on the other it often seems to threaten and even to dissolve the we have seen in vv. 10b-14 is that true meaning and purpose of life. . . . Peter regards the false teachers as hJdonh is one of the marks of a definite orientation of life beasts, blots, and blemishes on the opposed to the Christian. As such it has its place in the antithesis on which the world of the NT thinking is based. . . . community in particular and the The term hJdonh is linked particularly with false teachers, church in general. As the letter whose ethical characterisation is almost always for more comprecomes to a close, Peter will still be hensive in the NT than their theological. thinking about the stains and Gustav Stählin, “hJdonh” TDNT, 2:909–11, 919, 925. potential stains left by the false teachers. He will write, “strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish” (3:14). [H∑don∑ (“pleasure”)] Followers of Baalam, vv. 15-16 In two short verses Peter offers yet another way to describe the folly of the false teachers and to expose them as apostates. “They have left the straight road and have gone astray, following the road of Balaam son of Bosor” (v. 15),37 he writes. There is no mistake about Peter’s assessment of the false teachers as apostates. They are members of the community, they participate in the Lord’s Supper (albeit with questionable motives, as noted in 2:13-14), and yet they promote ideas and moral examples that are contrary to Peter’s understanding of authentic apostolic teaching. To say that they have “left the straight road and have gone astray” cannot be muted with claims that the false teachers never had accepted the gospel. “They deny the Master who bought them,” Peter wrote in 2:1. The certainty of their apostasy will be developed further below. [Balaam and His Oracles]

340

2 Peter 2:1-22

For now Peter focuses on comparing the false teachers to Balaam, a prominent figure in Numbers 22–24 who also becomes a watchword for self-serving greed or divination elsewhere in the Old Testament (see Deut 23:4-5; Josh 13:22; 24:9-10); but in Nehemiah 13:2 and Micah 6:5 Balaam becomes a symbol of how God can use a non-Israelite to accomplish divine purpose. Peter uses Balaam as a watchword for greed, noting how Balaam “loved the wages of doing wrong” (v. 15b). Peter capitalizes upon the comic feature of the Balaam story by noting that “[Balaam] was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness” (v. 16). For Peter, Balaam was a charlatan who attempted to speak the truth, only to be confounded by an ass who knew better. Peter’s use of the story develops even further his comparison of the false teachers to beasts. Balaam’s donkey was better at perceiving truth than his master. By comparison, the false teachers are less than a dumb donkey who finds his voice in an encounter with an “angel of the Lord” (Num 22:23-30).

Balaam and His Oracles In Num 22–24 “Balaam son of Beor” brings comic relief to the stories of the Israelites in the wilderness. These chapters also demonstrate that a non-Israelite can be used by God to announce the truth of divine presence and will. The best known of the Balaam exploits is the tale of how his donkey saves him from being killed by an angel of the Lord while Balaam travels at the behest of King Balak of Moab to place a curse on the Israelites. The donkey sees what Balaam does not— an angel of the Lord with a sword who is attempting to block Balaam’s progress. Three times the angel blocks the path and the donkey turns away or lies down. Each time Balaam beats the beast. After the third beating the Lord gives the donkey a temporary gift of speech and the ass rebukes his master. The Lord opens Balaam’s eyes and he, too, sees the angel. The end of the story has Balaam blessing the Israelites rather than cursing them. This story earns Balaam the reputation as a prophet for hire, despite the fact that, in the end, he prophesies for and not against Israel. The four oracles of Balaam (Num 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) all provide blessings on Israel and describe divine power. The fourth oracle (Num 24:15-19) came to be regarded as a messianic prophecy with its vision of “a star shall come out of Jacob, and scepter shall rise out of Israel (v. 17). The legends of Balaam and his oracles shape the argument of 2 Peter. The dramatic shaping comes in 2 Pet 2:15-16 where Peter seizes the reputation of Balaam as a prophet for hire and casts him as the kind of charlatan Peter believes his opponents to be. The subtle shaping comes in 2 Pet 1:19, where many commentators see “the morning star” as an allusion to the messianic prophecy of the “star . . . out of Jacob” in Num 24:17.

Slaves of Corruption and Apostates, vv. 17-22 Second Peter 2 ends with a stream of expressions that drive home his conviction that the false teachers are apostates. They “are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the deepest darkness has been reserved” (v. 17). They are dry wells and clouds that promise rain but do not bring it. They promise living water but do not deliver; for that reason they are destined for judgment. Their teaching is “bombastic nonsense” that “[promises] freedom” but is entangled in “corruption” (vv. 18-19). Their “licentious”

2 Peter 2:1-22

341

lifestyles “entice people who have Balaam’s Talking Ass just escaped from those who live in error” (v. 18). Most notable is Peter’s claim that “they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them” Image Not Available (v. 19). The claim is an echo of 2:1. due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published By denying the “Master who commentary or perform an Internet bought them,” the false teachers search using the credit below. become “slaves of corruption.” Most damning is the observation, “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Balaam’s Talking Ass (Num 22:20-35). Nuremberg Bible (Biblia Sacra Germanaica), Savior Jesus Christ, they are again 1493. Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Great Britain. (Credit: Art Resource, NY) entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them” (vv. 20-21). In this passage Peter uses his signature term, epignøsis, twice (vv. 20 and 21), which we have rendered as “conversional knowledge,” to apply to the false teachers. He believes the false teachers have indeed tasted the saving knowledge of God in Christ, but he also believes that they A Pigsty have departed from it. Their apostasy condemns them because of their corruption. Capping the apostasy of the false teachers, Peter employs a pair of proverbs that also Image Not Available underscores their beastly character: “The dog due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published turns back to its own vomit,” and, “The sow commentary or perform an Internet is washed only to wallow in the mud” (v. 22). search using the credit below. The first proverb comes from Proverbs 26:11; the second is a general saying that Peter must have known. Dogs and pigs were symbols of Glazed green terracotta model. Han Dynasty (2d C. BC–AD 2d C.). all that is unclean. Peter applies the proverbs Musee des Arts Asiatiques-Guimet, Paris, France. (Credit: Erich to the false teachers both as an illustration of Lessing/Art Resource, NY) their uncleanness and as an illustration of their apostasy, as a return to their sinfulness before they encountered the conversional knowledge of God in Christ.

342

2 Peter 2:1-22

CONNECTIONS Second Peter 2 reminds contemporary readers that the church always has been a place of contention and controversy. Usually differences of theological and ethical convictions are beneath the surface of the community that worships together and strives to become witnesses to the power of the gospel. Now and again, however, these differences bubble up and change the character of the church. Contemporary readers all have experienced the effects of contention and controversy that lead to divisions in local congregations and schisms that tear apart larger church bodies that purport to share basic theological and ethical positions. Second Peter 2 is, in that regard, a mirror in which the contemporary church finds itself reflected. The issues in 2 Peter are both theological and ethical. Peter’s arguments for apostolic teaching about the Parousia and judgment are spurred on by his deep concerns about the ethical implications of accepting or rejecting certain teachings. In the lifestyles of the false teachers he set out to expose, Peter finds theological flaws that allowed them to become wanton. Bad ethics often are the first clue to an underlying bad theology. In the loose morality of the false teachers, Peter saw an inadequate theology that refused to take seriously the moral demands of the Christian life. The false teachers claimed a moral freedom (2 Pet 2:19) that worked itself out as evidence that they had, in fact, become slaves to their own pursuits of pleasure. A crucial dimension to Peter’s attempt to expose the false teachers on the basis of their ethics is their apparent eagerness to peddle to “unsteady souls” their view of a gospel without demands for righteousness (2 Pet 2:14). They are charlatans, Peter contends, filled with greed and lust. The history of the church includes a long record of charlatans. In the contemporary world the presence and success of charlatans seems to have been enhanced by the availability of mass media. Television and radio hucksters of religion have huge followings as they preach their gospel of prosperity. Unsteady souls in our day never quite figure out that the prosperity the hucksters preach only allows them to line their pockets with illgotten gain. Now and again a scandal breaks that exposes the ugliness of their enterprises, including moral laxity. As Balaam became a watchword for charlatans in Peter’s day, so Jim Bakker and others of his ilk are symbols of what can go wrong in the

2 Peter 2:1-22

church. Because of them, “the way of truth will be maligned” (2 Pet 2:2). Contemporary readers of 2 Peter 2 should be shocked by the vitriolic rhetoric. Contextually, I understand that first-century readers did not find personal attacks offensive (I agree with Craddock that the attacks might even have had entertainment value38). Our context as readers is different than the original audience of 2 Peter, however. In our day, personal attacks often come from radio or television personalities whose confrontational style works best in the security of their studios. They blather and bash their opponents without having to see them or deal with rejoinders. Their bashing of opponents is gleefully received by adoring fans who, in turn, emulate the harshness of their media hero, further contributing to the erosion of civil discourse. In some instances the hot rhetoric against physicians who perform abortions, for example, inflames an unstable person who hears the verbal attack as a mandate for a deadly physical attack. Any rhetoric-spurred act of violence should make us reconsider what we say about whom to whom and why. It is clear that the writer of 2 Peter knew the letter of Jude. One would have hoped that he had better understood the lesson of Michael the archangel as he struggled with the devil over the body of Moses (Jude 9).39 Instead, in his eagerness to expose the false teachers, Peter slips in the mud he slings and comes up looking a bit soiled himself.

Notes 1. See [Jude and 2 Peter Parallels]. 2. The allusion is to the apocryphal T. Mos. or, perhaps, As. Mos. See Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 43. 3. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 80–81. 4. Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 157. 5. Ibid., 180. 6. For further discussion, see ch. 2. 7. For further discussion, see ch. 2. 8. For further discussion, see ch. 2. 9. It is the case that the Greek text has a future tense verb, esontai (“will be”), but Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word Books, 1983) 239, notes that “the future tense is used, of course, because although the author is referring to a

343

344

2 Peter 2:1-22 reality of his own time, he is writing in the person of Peter, and so, as was appropriate in a testament, . . . he represents Peter as prophesying the advent of false teachers after his death.” 10. Charles Whaley, Prophetic, Post-apostolic & Postmodern: An Oriental Approach to Three Bible Studies (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009) 43. 11. Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (The Pillars New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2006) 222. 12. For further discussion, see the introduction. 13. For further discussion, see ch. 2. 14. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 192. 15. Could the repetition of “licentious” (Gk., aselgeiais, in vv. 2 and 18, with aselgeia, in v. 7) be an inclusio that sets off the especially disgusting moral practices of Peter’s opponents? 16. Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2d ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1987) 108. 17. Recall Bultmann’s quip, “ajlhvqeia [al∑theia] is simply Christianity” (TDNT 1:244); see ch. 2, n. 4. 18. Wilhelm Michaelis, “o;do~, ktl.,” TDNT 5:86. 19. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 202. 20. Fred B. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) 112. 21. Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, 109. 22. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude, 112, expresses some wonder that Peter “assumes the readers not only knew 1 Enoch but regarded it as an authoritative account of God’s activity.” Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, 109–10, is more cautious; “Peter may have been influenced by the embellishment of the Genesis account in the apocryphal 1 Enoch. . . . But if Peter alludes to this apocryphal book at all, he does so with the utmost discretion.” 23. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 248–49, “The author of 2 Peter has followed Jude. He may not himself have known 1 Enoch and probably in any case could not expect his readers to be familiar with it.” 24. Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, 110, n. 1, notes that “It is probable that Peter is alluding to passages in 1 Enoch on the punishment of the angels, such as x.4-6, xviii.11, xxi.10.” 25. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 202. 26. Ibid. 27. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 250. Although it is not germane to Peter’s argument, readers familiar with the Noah narratives in Gen 6–9 will recall Noah was not immune from “the corruption that is in the world” (2 Pet 1:4) that Peter mentioned. Noah’s drunkenness and nakedness in Gen 9:20-27 has no bearing on Peter’s argument in 2 Pet 2:5, but it is consistent with Peter’s larger view that the world is tainted by sin. 28. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 253. The reference is not to Sodom, but to Jerusalem in the days of Ezekiel. It does, however, create an image of “those who groan and sigh over all of the abominations that are committed.” Bauckham also notes (252) that “Genesis does not portray Lot as entirely blameless,” and makes a passing refer-

2 Peter 2:1-22 ence to Gen 19:30-38 where post-destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the daughters of Lot ply their father with wine and have sexual intercourse with him in order to preserve his family line. The aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is, again, not germane to Peter’s argument. It is, nonetheless, consistent with Peter’s larger view that the world is tainted by sin. 29. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude, 113–14. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1969) 337, writes that 2 Peter 2:10b-22 “is the most violent and colorfully expressed tirade in the NT.” 30. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude, 114. 31. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 260–64. 32. Ibid., 261. 33. Ibid., 262. 34. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 137. 35. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 239, makes that claim, also noting that 2 Pet 2:13 “is an adaptation of Jude 12” where the “feast” explicitly is the “love feast.” 36. Ibid., 241. 37. The OT designations are of “Balaam of Beor,” so “Balaam of Bosor” is either an error on Peter’s part (see Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 343) or, perhaps, a reflection of a clever pun on boshor meaning “flesh” in Jewish tradition that would emphasize Balaam’s self-serving goals (see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 267). 38. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude, 114; cf. n 29 above. 39. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 261, and the commentary above on vv. 10b-16.

345

Reminders, Encouragements, and Defenses 2 Peter 3:1-18

COMMENTARY The last chapter of 2 Peter is mostly a collection of reminders of what has already been written, additional encouragements to the community, and elaborations upon the prior defenses of apostolic teachings about Parousia and judgment. The only new material appears in two sentences about “our beloved brother Paul” and the value of his writings (vv. 15-16), but even they serve to bolster Peter’s extended arguments in the letter. Second Reminder and Encouragement, 3:1-2

Peter’s pastoral character, which has infused the letter, appears explicitly with his address of his readers as “beloved” (agap∑toi). Against the backdrop of the love of God, the term “implies election”1 and, by further implication, binds together the community in the love of God through Jesus Christ and the apostles. Five times agap∑tos (singular) or agap∑toi (plural) appears in 2 Peter. The singular references are to Jesus at the transfiguration (1:17) and to Paul (3:15); the plural references are always to Peter’s readers and only in chapter 3 (vv. 1, 8, 14). Peter’s claim that “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you,” raises the question of what the first letter might be. Canonically 1 Peter seems like a good answer, but the differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are so stark that it is unlikely. The language and style of the two letters don’t support the idea of a single author. The theological emphases of the letters are quite different, too. First Peter focuses upon the need for his community to prepare to suffer persecution for their faith in a troubled world; the primary

348

2 Peter 3:1-18

focus of the letter is about being the church in the world, thus it calls upon Christians to cultivate a self-conscious identity as “aliens and exiles” (1 Pet 2:11) and to Image Not Available “conduct yourselves honorably due to lack of digital rights. among the Gentiles” (2:12). With Please view the published the possible exception of the commentary or perform an Internet phrase, “because of these teachers search using the credit below. the way of truth will be maligned” (2 Pet 2:2), 2 Peter only focuses upon internal matters that challenge its readers. Fra Bartolommeo (Baccio della Porta) (1472–1517). Saint Peter the Martyr Writing. Museo di S. Marco, Florence, Italy. (Credit: Finsiel/Alinari/Art Resource, NY) Second Peter is a defense of Parousia and judgment, themes that barely are present, if at all, in 1 Peter. It is unlikely, then, that the first letter implied in 2 Peter 3:1 is 1 Peter.2 Lapham’s conclusion that canonical 2 Peter may contain two letters from the same author with 2 Peter 3:1 being “the beginning of a separate letter, the first two chapters of 2 Peter constituting substantially the former letter implied in the verse” has merit.3 Scholars have found similar evidence of a canonical work compressing two or more letters, as in Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians.4 Lapham argues that the grammar in 2 Peter 3:1 supports the claim that 2 Peter 3 is a whole letter: “[T]he writer uses the present tense for both gravfw [graphø] and diegeivrw [diegeirø], suggest[ing] that the ‘second letter’ consists only of this final chapter.”5 Further he notes that there is “an exact parallel” of the author’s intent “to remind his readers of the truths they must maintain”6 in 2 Peter 1:12 and 2 Peter 3:1-2. Against those who read the opening of chapter 3 as an allusion to 1 Peter 1:10’s “the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours,” Lapham notes that mere mention of the prophets “hardly represents a rousing reminder of the apostolic warning of the rise of false teachers in the church. Such, however, is exactly the force of 2 Peter 1:12—yet another indication that two Petrine letters have come together in what has come to be known as 2 Peter.”7 What Lapham’s thesis does not address, however, is why Peter would have written two letters at one sitting. Saint Peter the Martyr Writing

2 Peter 3:1-18

349

The reminder in 2 Peter 3:1-2 also serves to underscore the character of 2 Peter as a “testament.”8 In v. 1 Peter employs three verbs, which taken together express the urgency of his letter: “I am writing to you; . . . I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you.” The testament genre is rooted in the assumed urgency of the author whose impending death demands that he make a final contact with his audience. The urgency in 2 Peter is heightened by its subject matter—the Parousia and judgment— and by the presence of false teachers in the community. Peter’s predicted death (2 Pet 1:14), his convictions about “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16), and his warning that “there will be [or are9] false teachers among you” (2:1), are ample reasons to issue a second reminder as the letter draws to a close. While the reminder generally has to do with Peter’s testament, it specifically refers to “the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles” (v. 2) The reference to “prophets, . . . and your apostles” follows Peter’s argument that prophets and apostles are proper counterpoints to false prophets and false The “Sacra Ruota” (Prophets and Apostles) teachers, the comparisons developed in 2 Peter 1:16–2:3a. Already we have seen that Peter counts himself among the apostles and, therefore, the phrase “your prophets” should not be an obstacle. Davids suggests that Image Not Available the construction of the phrase due to lack of digital rights. is “awkward in Greek, but that Please view the published is because our author wants to commentary or perform an Internet make it clear that the search using the credit below. command originated with Jesus and that the apostles were giving it in a secondary sense as representatives of Jesus.”10 The “commandment of the Lord and Savior” certainly is another way to describe the whole of gospel. Fra Angelico (1387–1455). The “Sacra Ruota.” From the doors of the Silver Cabinet. c. 1450. Museo di S. Marco, Florence, Italy. (Credit: Nicolo Orsi Battaglini/Art Resource, NY)

350

2 Peter 3:1-18 Second Denial and Defense of the Parousia: The Fourth Challenge, 3:3-7

“First of all you must understand this” (v. 3) is a statement of priority, not sequence. The phrase continues the urgency of the reminders noted in vv. 1-2. For Peter the “scoffing scoffers” (which captures the Greek text, empaimon∑ emmaiktai) are an acute threat that demands immediate attention. Peter cannot resist also heaping up his persistent claim throughout the letter that the false teachers, these “scoffing scoffers,” are driven by “their own lusts.” Epithymia (“lust”) and its close cousin, aselgeiai (“license, as in ‘licentious’”), appear six times in 2 Peter: epithymia in 1:4; 2:10; 3:3, and aselgeiai in 2:2, 7, 18. In all cases Peter is indicating that the immorality of the false teachers is their lack of self-control, which is another way of saying that they have not Thymos cultivated the core character of a follower The verb thy (to well up, to boil up) and the noun of Jesus (cf. 1:5-7, the “chain of virtues,” thymos (“vital force” or “wrath”) lie behind epithymia (“lust” or “desire”). According to Büchsel, which includes “self-control”). [Thymos] Verse 4 repeats the challenge of the qumov~ originally denote[ed] a violent movement of air, “scoffing scoffers,” perhaps in their own water, the ground, animals, or men. . . . The basic meaning of qumov~ is thus similar to that of pnema [pneuma = words:11 “Where is the promise of his spirit], namely, that which is moved and which moves, [or] coming? For ever since our ancestors died, vital force. In Homer qumov~ is the vital force of animals and all things continue as they were from the men. By the New Testament times thymos came to mean beginning of creation!” The scoffing has wrath, both human and divine, but in Revelation it is always three parts: (1) a taunting denial of the divine except for the wrath of the dragon at 12:12. Although epithymia (lust) is not found in Homer, it is Parousia, (2) an odd statement about the common later [and] denotes the direct impulse toward death of ancestors, and (3) a sweeping food, sexual satisfaction . . . and desire in general. The assertion about a static creation. The Stoics regarded epithymia as one of the four chief passions, along with hedon (pleasure), phobos (fear), and lyp (pain); scoffers’ question, “Where is the promise these arise out of a wrong attitude to possessions, with of his coming?” is a taunt, as the foldesire and anxiety when these are present and with lowing exclamation shows. To paraphrase cupidity and fear when they are future. In the New Testament epithymia and epithymein may be both the question and exclamation, the used for natural desires of hunger . . . or longing, but mostly scoffers say, “Oh, yeah? Nothing has [the terms] indicate evil desire. The desires deemed lustful changed!” To question the teaching of the reflect disobedience to the command of God. Friedrich Büchsel, qumov~, piqumiva, ktl., TDNT 3:16771. Parousia is one thing. To reject with a taunt is quite another. The second part of the quotation from the scoffing opponents, “For ever since our ancestors died,” is odd for two reasons. First is the confusion about who the “ancestors” might be. Some, like Green,12 see the “ancestors” to be a reference to the Old Testament prophets. Others, such as Kraftchick,13 see the “ancestors” to be a

2 Peter 3:1-18

351

reference to the first generation of followers of Jesus. While we recognize the dilemma and its implications, we wonder how much stock should be put into a taunt from scoffing opponents. Who they meant by “ancestors” would neither soften nor harden their taunt.14 The sweeping assertion about a static creation is an intriguing opportunity to further identify the scoffing false teachers with some form of popular Epicureanism.15 As Neyrey points out, Epicureanism argued against any school of thought or religion that relied upon sophisticated understandings of “cosmology,” “freedom,” “unfulfilled prophecy,” or “injustice.”16 The scoffers claim that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” is a cosmological assertion with implications for freedom, unfulfilled prophecy, and justice/injustice. It betrays their opinion that creation is a stable “Six More Teachings of Epicurus” entity. It further opens the idea— 2. Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been which is consistent with the resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us. teaching of Epicurus—that creation came about randomly and that there 11. If we had never been molested by alarms at celestial and is no presence of divine influence in atmospheric phenomena, nor by the misgiving that death creation. [“Six More Teachings of Epicurus”] somehow affects us, nor by neglect of the proper limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need to study natural science. Verses 5-6 contain Peter’s retort to the taunt of the scoffing false 12. It would be impossible to banish fear on matters of the highest teachers.17 He responds with the importance, if a person did not know the nature of the whole uniclaim that his opponents “deliberverse, but lived in dread of what the legends tell us. Hence without the study of nature there was no enjoyment of unmixed ately ignore this fact, that by the pleasures. word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of 15. Nature’s wealth at once has its bounds and is easy to procure; water and by means of water, but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance. through which the world of that 19. Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of time was deluged with water and pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. perished.” It is unlikely that Peter here is addressing his opponents. It 21. He who understands the limits of life knows how easy it is to procure enough to remove the pain of want and make the whole is more likely that he is addressing of life complete and perfect. Hence he has no longer any need of members of the community who are things which are not to be won save by labor and conflict. wavering between the influence of Excerpted from Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, trans. Robert Drew Hicks, http://clasPeter and the influence of the sics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html. scoffers, as Peter has branded them. The scoffers—the false teachers—already have rejected the ideas of creation and consummation (Parousia). They are lost,18 but Peter’s pastoral concern for the vulnerable remains strong.

352

2 Peter 3:1-18

The retort is a pedestrian summary of the prevailing cosmology among Jews and most Christians that derives from Genesis 1. “By the word of God the heavens existed long ago” is consistent with Genesis 1:1. The idea that “an earth was formed out of water and by means of water” also is consistent with Genesis 1:6-8. Verse 6 Image Not Available continues the interpretation of the power due to lack of digital rights. of water, divinely shaped, with a second Please view the published allusion to the flood19 that relies upon commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below. Genesis 6–9. With v. 7a the emphasis moves from the past traditions of Genesis to Peter’s convictions that the future purging of the earth will be “by fire” and not by water. The move from past to future is part of Peter’s conviction that God’s powerful word is Dividing of the Waters. Mosaic in the nave of the Duomo of Monreale. both creative and destructive: “by the same Late Byzantine, c. 1182–1192. Duomo, Monreale, Italy. (Credit: Vanni/Art Resource, NY) word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire.” Neyrey cites the Hellenistic philosopher and Jewish apologist, Philo (d. AD 50) as an example of the teaching about the “two powers of God” that may have influenced Peter: Dividing of the Waters

Mankind Drowns in the Flood

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Mankind Drowns in the Flood, while the rain keeps pouring down. Byzantine mosaic. 13th C. S. Marco, Venice, Italy. (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY)

I should myself say that [the Cherubim {on the Ark of the Covenant}] are allegorically representative of the two most august and highest potencies . . . of Him that is, the creative and the kingly. His creative potency is called God, . . . because through it He placed and made and ordered this universe, and the kingly is called Lord, . . . being that with which He governs what has come into being and rules it steadfastly with justice.20

2 Peter 3:1-18

Only in 2 Peter in the New Testament do we find the assertion that “the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire.” We should note, too, that Peter already has documented the destruction by water (2:5) and has anticipated a large-scale conflagration by fire in the future with his commentary upon the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.21 The point for Peter is that the Parousia, and the judgment that will be included, will be “the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.” The verb in v. 7b, “have been reserved” (teth∑saurismenoi) also was found in 2:4, 9, “to keep” (t∑roumenous, t∑rein), used with reference to the rebel angels and the “unrighteous . . . until the day of judgment.” Now we see more fully Peter’s understanding of the justice of God that will The Ancient of Days disclosed at the Parousia. The theme will This work by William Blake depicts God measuring reappear in the following verses. the universe, presumably both its spatial and temporal dimensions.

Denial and Defense of Judgment: The Fifth Challenge, 3:8-13

In vv. 8-9 Peter addresses his opponents’ claim that “The Lord is . . . slow about his promise.” The promise is the promise claimed in 2:9, “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” Peter rejects the idea of a slow God with a distinctly pastoral response. “The Lord is not slow,” he writes, “but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.” To support his conviction that God is “not slow, . . . but patient,” Peter quotes from Psalm 90:4, “with the LORD one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are William Blake (1757–1827). The Ancient of Days. 1794. Relief like one day.” etching with watercolor. British Museum, London, Great Britain. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] Divine patience, however, is not a reason for anyone to presume that judgment will never come. Bauckham draws attention to the tension between divine patience and the promise of the Parousia and judgment, noting that “the coming of the End is not only certain, but also unpredictable.”22 The unpredictability of the Parousia and

353

354

2 Peter 3:1-18

judgment should arouse watchfulness in the lives of Peter’s readers. Verse 10a echoes Jesus’ brief parable, “But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into” (Matt 24:43). Davids raises the probability that Peter’s source is not the Gospel but 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4 because Peter “is using the metaphor more as Paul does than as Jesus does.”23 Pauline influence upon Peter is not surprising. Peter claims to know Paul’s work (2 Pet 3:15-16). The rest of v. 10 offers a description of cosmic conflagration, the only such image in the New Testament: “and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.” The preHeraclitus (c.540–c.480 BC) Socratic philosopher Heraclitus usually is credited with the idea that fire was the chief element of the cosmos, taking precedence over the remaining elements of water, air, and earth. He taught that the volatility of fire would result in periodic destruction of the universe, allowing it to Image Not Available be cyclically reborn.24 A similar idea was due to lack of digital rights. also characteristic of the Stoic teachers. Please view the published Peter’s description of the conflagration is a commentary or perform an Internet modification of the classic Greek philosearch using the credit below. sophical teaching. His understanding of “the elements” seems to relate to “the heavens” (“the sky and the heavenly bodies”25) that temporally “[stand] between the eye of God and the earth. When the sky and the heavenly bodies are gone ‘the earth and everything that is done Heraclitus. Greek philosopher. Hellenistic marble bust. Musei Capitolini, Rome, Italy. (Credit: Alinari/Art Resource, NY) on it will be disclosed.’”26 [Heraclitus and the Stoics] [Stoicheia]

The idea of the conflagration as a revelatory event that comes at the Parousia is, in Peter’s extended argument, the fulfillment of God’s “precious and very great promises” so that the faithful “may become participants of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). What is revealed? Everything will be revealed: the wickedness and righteousness of humanity. At the final disclosure, Peter’s conviction that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to

2 Peter 3:1-18

355

keep the unrighteous under punish- Heraclitus and the Stoics Heraclitus and the Stoics on Conflagration ment until the day of judgment” (2 Pet 2:9). All things being material, what is the original kind of matter, or We take v. 11, “[W]hat sort of stuff, out of which the world is made? The Stoics turned to persons ought you to be in leading Heraclitus for an answer. Fire (logos) is the primordial kind of lives of holiness and godliness [in being, and all things are composed of fire. With this materialism light of the Parousia]”? to be a rhetor- the Stoics combined pantheism. The primal fire is God. God is related to the world exactly as the soul to the body. The human ical question tempered with high soul is likewise fire, and comes from the divine fire. It permeates expectations. Kelly writes, “The late and penetrates the entire body, and, in order that its interpeneGreek potapos (what sort of ) has a tration might be regarded as complete, the Stoics denied the much more positive flavour (cf. its impenetrability of matter. Just as the soul-fire permeates the whole body, so God, the primal fire, pervades the entire use in Mat. viii. 27; 1 Jn. iii. 1) than world. . . . the English conveys; in the context it The world-process is circular. God changes the fiery subhints that great things are expected of stance of himself first into air, then water, then earth. So the the readers.”27 Peter already has made world arises. But it will be ended by a conflagration in which all things will return into the primal fire. Thereafter, at a preclear what is possible with the chain ordained time, God will again transmute himself into a world. It of virtues (2 Pet 1:5-7) and his per- follows from the law of necessity that the course taken by this sistent plea that his readers cultivate a second, and every subsequent, world, will be identical in every righteous life as evidence of their con- way with the course taken by the first world. The process goes on for ever, and nothing new ever happens. The history of each versional knowledge of God in successive world is the same as that of all the others down to Christ. Now it seems that he is the minutest details. The human soul is part of the divine fire, and proceeds into expressing what is probable for his humans from God. Hence it is a rational soul, and this is a point readers. Verse 12 has the phrase, of cardinal importance in connection with the Stoic ethics. But “waiting for and hastening the the soul of each individual does not come direct from God. The coming of the day of God.” The divine fire was breathed into the first man, and thereafter “waiting” is understood, but what of passed from parent to child in the act of procreation. After the “hastening”? Bauckham sees the death, all souls (according to some scholars) or only the souls of the good (according to other scholars) continue in individual verb “as a corollary of the explanation existence until the general conflagration in which they, and all (v 9) that God defers the parousia else, return to God. because he desires Christians to “Stoicism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, repent. Their repentance and holy Anonymous, http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/. living may therefore, from the human standpoint, hasten its coming.”28 The rest of v. 12 is a rewording of the description of the conflagration found in v. 10. The section concludes with another reminder of God’s promises: “But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home” (v. 13). “How refreshing verse 13 is!” Craddock exclaims. “After lengthy arguments with the heretics and vivid warnings of the fire next time, the writer turns in pastoral care toward those still clutching the

356

2 Peter 3:1-18

Stoicheia The basic meaning of the term is “what belongs to a series,” which, in turn, comes to mean “letters” that constitute a “word,” and then “sounds,” as in Plato and Aristotle. The term becomes even more restricted to denote an “element” in the sense of a substance that is irreducible, or “original matter.” The term specifically comes to mean “the four cosmic elements” (“water,” “earth,” “air,” and “fire”), but also is used to describe “the star” or “constellation.” “In 2 Pet 3:10, 12 the only possible meaning is obviously ‘elements’ . . . or ‘stars’ . . . . It is supported by the adoption of the Stoic idea of a cosmic conflagration in which the other elements will dissolve into the primal element of fire.”

promise of something better and asks that they match God’s patience (v. 9) with their own.”29 Final Reminder and Encouragement, 3:14-18

The closing paragraph of 2 Peter is standard fare for epistles, except for the insertion in praise of Paul (vv. 15b-16). In v. 14 the readers once again are “beloved” (cf. 3:1, 17); Peter is either expressing his genuine affection for the readers, which is likely, or he is using his final words as a subtle appeal. “[W]hile you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and Gerhard Delling, stoicevw, ktl. TDNT 7:670–73, 681–86. regard the patience of our Lord as salvation” (vv. 14-15a) hits, again, some themes in the letter. “[W]aiting for these things” refers to the just-discussed “coming of the day of God” (v. 12). “[S]trive to be found by him at peace” harks back to the salutation where Peter greets his readers with “grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (1:2). It is not too far of a stretch to suggest, too, that the readers—especially if they read or heard read the letter several times—would connect Peter’s salutation with the hopefulness of “what sort of persons ought you to be” (3:11). “[W]ithout spot or blemish” is an obvious turnaround on the claim in 2:13 that the false teachers are “blots and blemishes” in the church. “[R]egard the patience of our Lord as salvation” reinforces 3:8-9’s rejoinder to the opponents that what appears to be divine slowness is really divine patience, with the hope that all will repent. The praise of Paul in vv. 15b-16 is curious because of its (intentional?) ambiguity. Peter does not give the slightest hint as to where Paul has linked divine patience with salvation. He does not give the slightest hint as to what Paul has written to the same audience Peter now addresses. The incomplete salutation—which fails to mention a specific audience—only exacerbates the ambiguity of v. 15b. Verse 16 is even more exasperating in its ambiguity. “Speaking of this as he does in all his letters” has no point of reference and is therefore impossible to pin down. Likewise, “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures,” is impossible to locate in the Pauline corpus.

2 Peter 3:1-18

357

Critical response to these parts of Saint Paul Writing 2 Peter has been understandably varied. Neyrey identifies sixteen terms shared by 2 Peter and the letters of Paul, and also suggests four themes (“inheriting the divine nature,” “chain of virtues,” “false prophets who deny judgment,” and “freedom”). Neyrey finally concludes, Image Not Available however, that since Paul and 2 Peter no due to lack of digital rights. doubt had a number of common sources, Please view the published the only sure knowledge 2 Peter has of commentary or perform an Internet Paul is restricted to Romans 2:4-6 and search using the credit below. 1 Thessalonians 5:4.30 Kelly is not very generous. He writes, “Here again [the writer of 2 Peter] is seeking to bolster his own authority by identifying himself with Peter and claiming Paul as his dear brother. . . . But his manner of doing this betrays, almost more than any other Jacob Adriaensz Backer (1608–1651). Saint Paul Writing. Musee des Beaux-Arts, Rouen, France. (Credit: Scala/White Images/Art Resource, NY) passage in the letter, that the apostolic age, with its tensions between Peter and Paul (e.g., Gal ii.11-16) on the one hand and Paul and the original apostolic group on the other, lies in the misty past.”31 Witherington concedes that Peter the apostle did not write 2 Peter and sees in these verses evidence that the anonymous author “does not try to hide that he is writing, not as Peter or as Paul’s fellow apostle, but as himself, compiling apostolic authoritative testimony to back up his argument.”32 The best we can say about vv. 15b-16 is that Paul did seem to overshadow Peter in the early church, and therefore we can understand why 2 Peter would like to be associated with Paul and his influence. We also can say, with Neyrey and Davids, that it would be foolish to try to isolate Pauline and Petrine sources; there certainly is broad evidence that both authors—and others in the New Testament and beyond—relied upon common sources that can at best only be reconstructed. We also can agree that Paul often is hard to understand and easily manipulated by interpreters who have an agenda instead of seeking to understand the texts and contexts of the canonical letters. What we cannot say about these verses is that they establish the letters of Paul as “Scripture,” as in “canonical writings.” Even if we

358

2 Peter 3:1-18

assign to 2 Peter a date in the as late as AD 150 or as early as AD 90, which is the window I suggested in the introduction,33 that window is much too early to raise the questions of canon. The letter moves gently to an end with another reminder and a hopeful challenge to the readers: “You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability” (v. 17). There is no new information, only the reminders that the readers have been “forewarned,” and challenges to “beware that you are not carried away” and to guard “your own stability.” The proper benediction is one of the most beautiful among all the letters in the New Testament: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” The benediction is encouraging and hopeful. It needs no commentary.

CONNECTIONS Reminders are good. Encouragements are better. Second Peter 3 has an abundance of both. Each time I leave the dentist’s office, I address a reminder card to myself and the office staff mails it to me a week or so before my next appointment. I usually get a phone call, too, the day before. My phone beeps with yet another reminder an hour before I am to arrive at the dentist’s office. A dentist appointment is not the most important thing in my life; if I missed one, it would not be “the end of the world,” as a popular colloquialism notes. If something as insignificant as a dental appointment warrants multiple reminders, what about genuinely significant issues? How do people, and specifically people of faith, remind themselves who they are and why they invest their lives in communities of worship and service? Some churches build reminders into every worship service, such as reciting the Apostles’ Creed or singing the Gloria Patria, or both. Many churches create logos and slogans to serve as reminders of identity and to “brand” the local church in the community. A growing number of churches adopt the liturgical calendar as a perpetual reminder of the way the church came to be and continues in the world.

2 Peter 3:1-18

The Apostles’ Creed, which since the formative years of the church has been used as a summary of orthodox teaching, includes the phrases, “the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” The “from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead” is what drives 2 Peter. The last chapter of the letter includes at least a half-dozen reminders that Parousia and judgment are foundational apostolic teachings. So what about “the end of the world” and how the church connects to that teaching in the twenty-first century? In April 2009 the Pew Research Center released the analysis of a 2006 survey in which nearly 1700 self-identified Christians responded to questions about “the second coming.”34 Almost 80 percent of the respondents affirmed their belief in the teaching of Christ’s return. Twenty percent said they expected Christ’s return in their lifetime. In a less scientific study, Pheme Perkins reports on a “sampling of parishioners” that “elicited almost universal agreement that they never thought about the second coming.”35 Somewhere between the formal and informal surveys is an accurate picture of contemporary thinking about Parousia and judgment (and we know that the content and contexts of surveys always skews the results somewhat). Pew Results

(Credit: The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. www.pewforum.org)

359

360

2 Peter 3:1-18

Perkins’s musing about the result of her survey challenges church teachers and preachers to be more attentive to the form and content of the apostolic teaching about the Parousia. “[T]he more interesting question for Christians who do not find the question of Christian eschatology of pressing interest is the argument itself,”36 she writes. To many contemporary readers of 2 Peter, the arguments for Parousia and judgment are weighed down by the trappings of first-century culture. Peter’s need to defend the teaching of the Parousia against detractors who regarded it as “myth” doesn’t get much traction in contemporary culture. But Perkins also notes that the writer of 2 Peter “combines two cultures, Jewish and Greek, . . . [and that] Second Peter does seek to make a persuasive case for Christian belief in terms that would be intelligible to an educated audience.”37 I agree with Perkins that one task of Christian teaching and preaching is to respect and defend traditional teachings without becoming bound too tightly to the cultures out of which the traditions emerged. Peter’s teaching about the Parousia as a cosmic conflagration where “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed” perhaps makes more sense to contemporary readers than it did to Peter’s generation. Since 1945 we have lived under the shadows of the threat of nuclear war that scientists tell us would end the world as we know it. More recently other scientists have reminded us that our solar system is not eternal. The sun someday will simply burn out in a final poof that will engulf all of the planets.38 Reminders are good. Encouragements are better. After the punishing arguments in 2 Peter 2, the reader is soothed with the repeated use of the affectionate and communal term, “beloved.” In the end of the letter, “beloved” also embraces Paul and his writings as part of the community of apostles and followers of Jesus. Second Peter, perhaps, attempts to bind up the wounds of factionalism in the early church between the Jewish and Gentile converts. The simple gesture of embracing Paul, even if doing so was designed to strengthen Peter’s arguments, could be a model lesson for the contemporary church as it confronts authentic diversity in its midst.

2 Peter 3:1-18

Notes 1. Ethelbert Stauffer, “ajgapavw, ajgavph, ajgaphto~,” TDNT 1:49. 2. For further discussion on the relationships between 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, see the introduction. 3. F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition (JSNTS 239; London: Shefflield Academic Press, 2003) 155. 4. Richard F. Wilson, “Corinthian Correspondence,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills et al.; Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 171–74. 5. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings, 156. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. For further discussion, see the introduction and ch. 2. 9. For further discussion, see ch. 3. 10. Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (The Pillars New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2006) 261. 11. Jerome H. Neyrey, “Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL 99/3 (1980): 414, speculates that 2 Peter “cites the opponents only twice (3:3-4, 9) while the remainder of their polemic must be extracted from the author’s reaction.” 12. Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2d ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1987) 140, notes that “since every other reference to ‘the fathers’ in the New Testament . . . means ‘the Old Testament fathers,’ such I take the probable meaning here.” 13. Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 152, notes that “in the present context [of 2 Pet], the expression [‘our fathers’] refers more generally to the first generation of believers. By the time 2 Peter was written, these believers likely had died. Since Jesus had promised to return during that generation’s lifetime, their death called into question the validity of his promises.” 14. Having attempted modestly to refocus the question of who “the ancestors” might be, I favor the position taken by Kraftchick and others who see it as a reference to the first generation of followers of Jesus. Parousia has little, if any, bearing upon the claims of the OT prophets, but it matters immensely to the integrity of the apostles and followers of Jesus in the first generation. 15. For further discussion of the treatment of the opponents, see the introduction. 16. Neyrey, “Form and Background,” 409. 17. But we must wonder if Peter fully appreciated the fact that he was being taunted. His reply does not take seriously any of the particulars of the arguments of his opponents—if they were, indeed, adherents to the popular ethos of Epicureanism. He answers the taunt with a rehearsal of a creation doctrine that his opponents no doubt already have rejected. On the other hand, perhaps Peter is well aware that he is being taunted and he is further aware that the false teachers are having some sway with members in the community who are wavering. If that is the case—and it seems so to me—then Peter is bypassing his opponents altogether and making his appeal directly to those in the community who are vulnerable. 18. In 2 Peter 2:1 Peter said of the false teachers, “They will even deny the Master who bought them.” In 2:15 Peter claimed, “They have left the straight road and have

361

362

2 Peter 3:1-18 gone astray.” In 2:21 he noted, “For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them.” 19. See 2 Pet 2:5. 20. Philo, Moses 2.99, cited in Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 233. 21. See 2 Pet 2:5-7. 22. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word Books, 1983) 314. 23. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 282. 24. G. S. Kirk, “Ecpyrosis in Heraclitus: Some Comments,” Phronesis 4/2 (1959): 73–76, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181651. 25. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 286. 26. Ibid. Davids uses the NIV, “the earth and everything in it will be laid bare,” but we have inserted the NRSV translation. 27. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1969) 366. 28. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 325. 29. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude, 121. 30. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 122–34. Curiously, Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 303, takes Neyrey to task for having too broad a set of parallels between Paul and 2 Peter and concludes that “the only really plausible parallels are Rom 2:4 and 1 Thess 5:2.” Davids’s conclusion is virtually the same as Neyrey’s! One has to wonder if Davids forgot to read Neyrey’s analysis of the possible parallels between Paul and 2 Peter. 31. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 370. 32. Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter: Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2 (Downer’s Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 386. 33. For further discussion, see the introduction. 34. “Christians’ Views on the Return of Christ,” 2006 Survey, Pew Research Center, 9 April 2009, http://pewforum.org/Christians-Views-on-the-Return-ofChrist.aspx. 35. Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995) 162. 36. Ibid., 163. 37. Ibid. 38. “Poof” is onomatopoeic, as is roiz∑don (“roar” or “loud noise”) in 2 Pet 3:10.

Bibliography The Apocalypse of Peter, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeterroberts.html. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Waco: Word Books, 1983. Bray, Gerald, editor. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, XI. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. New York: Doubleday, 1983. ———. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2: Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost JudeoHellenistic Works. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Cone, James H. “Black Consciousness and the Black Church.” Christianity and Crisis 30 (1970): 244–50. ———. “The Gospel and the Liberation of the Poor: How My Mind Has Changed.” The Christian Century 98 (1981): 162–66. Craddock, Fred B. First and Second Peter and Jude. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillars New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2006. Elliott, John H. “I-II Peter/Jude,” in James, 1-2 Peter, Jude. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. Green, Michael. The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Second edition. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1987. Gutiérrez, Gustavo, and Richard Shaull. Liberation and Change. Atlanta: John Knox, 1977. Harrington, Daniel J., S. J. Jude and 2 Peter. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992 Käsemann, Ernst. “An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology.” In Essays on New Testament Themes. W. J. Montague, translator. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Kelly, J. N. D. The Epistles of Peter and Jude. Harpers New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Kirk, G. S. “Ecpyrosis in Heraclitus: Some Comments.” Phronesis 4/2 (1959): 73–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181651. Koptak, Paul E. “Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Resource for Preaching.” http://www.religiononline.org/showarticle.asp?title=20. Accessed 15 May 2010.

364

Bibliography Kraftchick, Steven J. Jude, 2 Peter. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. McClendon, James Wm., Jr. Doctrine: Systematic Theology, Volume II. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994. McLaren. Brian. A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spirited Journey. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. ———. A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, DepressedyetHopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. ———. The Last Word and the Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. ———. A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith. SanFrancisco: HarperOne, 2010. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Mills, Watson E. “Jude.” In Mercer Commentary on the Bible. Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson, editors. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1995. 1319–23. Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude. The Anchor Bible 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ———. “The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-21.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 504–19. ———. “Epicureans and the Areopagus Speech: Stereotypes and Theodicy.” http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/epicureans.html. Originally in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, edited by D. L. Balch and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. 118–34. ———. “Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99/3 (1980): 407–31. Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interpretation. Louisville: John Know Press, 1995. Reese, Ruth Anne. 2 Peter and Jude. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2007. Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. The Anchor Bible 37. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Sidebottom, E. M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdamns, 1967. Talbert, Charles. “II Peter and the Delay of the Parousia.” Vigiliae christianae 20/3 (Sep 1966): 137–45. Watson, Duane Frederick. Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Whaley, Charles. Prophetic, Post-apostolic & Postmodern: An Oriental Approach to Three Bible Studies. Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009. Wilson, Richard F. “Corinthian Correspondence.” In Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Watson E. Mills, et al., editors. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990. 171–74.

Bibliography Witherington III, Ben. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. Volume 2. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007.

365

jude

introduction to jude Situated near the end of the collection of writings that constitutes the New Testament, Jude is among eight books sandwiched between the thirteen letters traditionally ascribed to St. Paul and the Revelation of St. John. These eight books are not nearly as well known as the Gospels and Pauline epistles. And among these eight, Jude is much less known than 1 John or 1 Peter. These eight books are of two distinct, though somewhat similar, literary types: the theological treatise (1 John and Hebrews) and the general letter (2 and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, James, and Jude). This latter grouping of six is often referred to as the “catholic epistles” (here the term “catholic” means “universal”) since the audience for each letter is generally rather than specifically identified. Among these six letters, 2 Peter and Jude betray some literary interdependence (see discussion below). Among the catholic epistles, this twenty-five-verse letter (there are no chapter divisions) ranks among the shortest in the New Testament collection (even shorter are 2 and 3 John). Few allusions to Jude are found in within the literature of Christian history. Similarly, the book is rarely quoted within the modern Christian community and is seldom the text for a sermon. While many Christians might readily recognize the expression “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3), they might not know that it comes from Jude. There are compelling reasons for this general lack of interest in Jude. First, it is filled with a strange language that contains many obscure references. Second, the letter appears to be largely condemnatory and polemical in nature. Further, the author demonizes those who disagree with his teachings and makes no effort to engage them or their teachings.1 Finally, many contemporary readers are confused by Jude’s several references to two noncanonical books that belong to a collection of Jewish writings known collectively as the Pseudepigrapha: The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch. [Pseudepigrapha] It appears to modern readers that the writer of Jude does not realize that these books are not a part of the Christian canon. Of course, he could not have known the final shape of the canon during his lifetime. [The Assumption of Moses]

370

Introduction to Jude

Pseudepigrapha The English word “pseudepigrapha” is transliterated from the Greek words: pseudo (false) and epigraphy (inscription). Thus at least etymologically, the term refers to books that are written under a pseudonym. In practical usage, the term refers to a loosely defined collection of early Jewish and some Jewish-Christian writings composed between c. 200 BC and c. AD 200 that are not found in the Bible. These writings have at times been popular among some groups within Christianity though they have never been regarded as an official part of scripture by any group. Yet these writings are useful in that they illuminate various concepts and beliefs held by ancient peoples in the Middle East during the earliest years of the Christian faith. There are various literary types represented in the collection: legends about biblical characters, hymns, psalms, and apocalypses. Writings relating to Enoch, Moses, and Isaiah are prominent. Some of these writings originated in Palestine and were written in Hebrew or Aramaic; others originated in North Africa and were written in Coptic, Greek, and Ethiopic. In many cases the manuscript evidence is sketchy at best.

The Assumption of Moses The Assumption of Moses (sometimes also known as The Testament of Moses) is a Jewish pseudepigraphical work that describes the events near the end of the life of Moses. It is known from a single sixth-century incomplete manuscript in Latin that was discovered in Milan around 1860. There are two titles for this work because this manuscript is sometimes identified with two different lost texts. Indeed, some ancient lists refer to both The Testament of Moses and to The Assumption of Moses, suggesting separate, but similar texts. In any event, certain early church fathers were convinced that the author of Jude was quoting from this ancient writing in v. 9 where there is a reference to the dispute over the body of Moses between the archangel Michael and Satan. This dispute does not appear in the nineteenth-century manuscript—a fact that could be accounted because 30–35 percent of the text is missing. On the other hand, it could be that our author had The Testament of Moses before him. Others have argued the author of Jude conflated material from at least three sources: (1) general Jewish traditions about Michael as gravedigger for the just (Apocalypse of Moses); (2) the accusation by Michael of Azazel (The Book of Enoch); (3) the angel of the Lord’s rebuking Satan over the body of Joshua (Zechariah 3). The text numbers twelve chapters in length (although some text is missing) and deals with the secret prophecies of Moses revealed late in his life to Joshua.

Joseph L. Trafton, “Apocryphal Literature,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills; Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 41–46.

J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” in Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha; ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City NY: Doubleday & Company, 1983) 919–34.

Testament and Death of Moses The pathos surrounding Moses’ death on Mount Nebo, in sight of but outside the promised land, contributed to the inspiration not only of ancient extracanonical texts such as the Testament (Assumption) of Moses but also to Medieval and modern works of art such as that of Signorelli.

Luca Signorelli (1441–1523). The Testament and Death of Moses (central part). Sistine Chapel, Vatican Palace, Vatican State. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Introduction to Jude

On the other hand, there are solid reasons to give Jude a fair hearing. Jude is a crucial document from a period of Christian history when rigid lines were being drawn between orthodoxy and heresy. The book suggests a definite relationship between belief and practice. Jude constitutes a stern warning against selfdelusion, reminding its readers that their chosen status is a privilege that also entails a specific responsibility. The book calls its readers to a life of self-scrutiny because of the thin line between faithfulness and infidelity. Jude demonstrates that a life of fidelity requires both a dogged pursuit of truth and obedience.

Note 1. John H. Elliott, James, 1-2 Peter/Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982) 161.

371

Outline of Jude Opening

1-2

Identification of sender and recipients

1

Greeting

2

Statement of problem and purpose

3-4

Description of the false teachers as sinners

5-13

Warning by examples of God’s previous judgment on sinners

5-7

The unbelieving wilderness generation

5

The rebellious angels

6

Sodom and Gomorrah

8

Comparisons of the opponents with notorious examples

8-13

1. Michael and the devil

9-10

2. Cain, Balaam, and Korah

11

3. Empty examples from nature

12-13

Supporting evidence from prophecy

14-19

The prophecy of Enoch

14-16

The predictions of the Apostles

17-19

Exhortation to faithfulness

20-23

The Epistle Jude Jude 1-25 Literary Type Jude is cast in the form of a letter. Although it does not contain all of the characteristics of a typical first-century letter, it has more than Hebrews or 1 John. It is classed as a general letter because it does not specifically identify its recipients. [Letter Form in the New Testament] Origin and Destination The letter does not indicate its place of origin. Some have thought it could be connected with Egypt because it is referred to in the Muratorian Canon [Muratorian Canon] and because the Carpocratian heresy (which has similarities with the heresy attacked in the epistle) originated there. Others commentators suggest the epistle may have arisen in Syria where there was much gnostic activity [Gnosticism], including the concern with angels that is specifically mentioned (Jude 8f.). Others have theorized affinity with Asia Minor and Corinth because of the similarity to the difficulties mentioned in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence. The place of origin and the destination must be closely connected if it is assumed that the writer was familiar with conditions in a particular church or community. But, on the other hand, if the letter is a general epistle intended for the church at large, the position becomes even more difficult. Researchers often point to the use of extracanonical Jewish apocalyptic writings as an indication of a Jewish Christian Letter Form in the New Testament Of the 27 writings contained in the NT canon, 21 take the form of letters or epistles. They are found in sequence following the Book of Acts all the way to Revelation. Nineteen of these are actual letters, while two of them (1 John and Hebrews) are more like treatises disguised as letters. In these latter instances, the more obvious elements of the letter form [identity of the sender and recipient(s)] are absent. The standard form found in these letters, though obviously with some slight variations to suit the purposes of Christian writers, is consistent with and common to letter

writing in the ancient world. The NT letter form almost always begins with a greeting including an identification of the sender or senders and of the recipients. Next comes a prayer, often expressed in the form of a thanksgiving. The body of the letter provides an exposition of Christian teaching, sometimes in direct response to concrete circumstances. Many times, as in Jude, conclusions are drawn that relate specifically to ethical behavior. Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2006).

376

Jude 1-25

address. Gnosticism could have infected a Jewish Christian community and prompted such a response. Judaism has a close connection with Gnosticism in that they both share a similar view concerning the world and the flesh, not to mention parallels between later Jewish apocalyptic and the apocalyptic of later Gnosticism, as evidenced in the Nag Hammadi discovery. The pastoral epistles, 1 Peter, and James, for example, identify their addressees specifically, while Jude does not refer to particular individuals or even specific geographical areas. Perhaps the author understands that Howard Clark Kee, “Muratorian Canon,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible the responsibility for preserving and (ed. Watson E. Mills; Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 588. building up the faith falls to all who read his letter—whoever and wherever they may be. Only they can win back those who have been led astray by false teachers (vv. 22-23). In this sense the letter is truly a “general” epistle. The Muratorian Canon The 27 writings that make up our New Testament today were accepted as authoritative by a majority of Christians over time. One indication of how that process was evolving is the so-called Muratorian Fragment that was discovered in the 18th century by the Italian L. A. Muratori. The document was written in the second half of the 2d century though no original copy of it is extant. The oldest copy dates from the 7th century. The fragment lists all of the present writings found in the NT except for Hebrews, James, and one of the epistles of John. It also refers to two writings that have since disappeared from the NT collection: Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. The fragment, sometimes referred to as a “canon,” contains this phrase: “Of the Catholic Epistles, the author accepts the Epistle of Jude. . . .”

Gnosticism “Gnosticism” [from Greek gnøsis, knowledge] is a general term that describes a diverse religious movement sometimes associated with the rise of Christianity (although some scholars have theorized that Gnosticism has its roots in pre-Christian religions, instead of being merely an offshoot of Christianity). Its adherents are usually called “gnostics.” Apparently Gnosticism drew its own theology from many different and varying sources. Thus certain, select aspects of both Judaism and Christianity may be found within its various expressions. Since, as their name implies, gnostics believed that they were privy to a secret knowledge about the divine, specific information about these sects is difficult to come by. In fact, the term “Gnosticism” is a very general, rather inclusive term used by scholars to refer to a number of groups that share certain similar beliefs in general but whose particular doctrinal emphases vary in specifics ways from group to group. In general, the term refers to those religious groups who differentiate the evil (material order) of this world (often identified with the God of the OT) from the good (spiritual order) of a higher, more abstract God revealed by

Jesus Christ. Gnostics regard this world and all of its material order as evil and irredeemable. But they also believe in a hidden wisdom or knowledge available only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world. Certain sayings of Jesus were very appealing to the gnostics, and they apparently incorporated some of these into their belief systems, but only those that fit their suppositions. The gnostics are alluded to in the Bible, for example, in 1 Timothy 1:4 and 1 Timothy 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude. These and other texts are sometimes lumped together and labeled “anti-gnostic references.” Apparently some gnostics held that Christ was pure spirit and only “appeared” to have a physical body. Such a heretical view, from the orthodox point of view, might have been a contributing factor when the early Christians finally came to understand Jesus’ nature as “fully God and fully man.” Generally, the attitude among the early Christians was that Gnosticism was heretical and its adherents posed a grave danger to orthodoxy and should be disavowed and avoided. Charles W. Hedrick, “Gnosticism,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills; Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 333–35.

Jude 1-25

377

The Nag Hammadi Library Nag Hammadi is a town in Upper Egypt located on the Nile River, about 50 miles northwest of Luxor. It was here that in 1945 farmers discovered an earthenware jar containing 13 leather-bound papyrus scrolls. These 13 scrolls contained all or parts of 52 tractates, most of which were gnostic in content. These writings date to the second century of the Christian era. The scrolls were written in Coptic though they most certainly had been translated from Greek, quite possibly at the nearby monastery of St. Pachomius where possession of such heretical writings was not permitted. Many have theorized that this explains why the scrolls had been buried in a jar in the first place. The most famous writing among the 52 is the Gospel of Thomas. The scroll from Nag Hammadi is the only complete copy of this work that has ever been found. Bentley Layton, ed., The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City NY: Doubleday & Company, 1987).

Relationship to 2 Peter Except for a few opening and closing words, virtually all of Jude is included in 2 Peter. [Jude and 2 Peter] The correspondence between the two is such that one of three conclusions may be drawn: (1) the author of 2 Peter used Jude; (2) the author of Jude and 2 Peter Jude used 2 Peter; (3) the authors of 2 Peter The vast majority of verses in Jude can be found in a similar form in 2 Peter. Only the and Jude used an unknown common source. opening verse identifying the sender and recipients, Of these, (3) must almost certainly be ruled the statement of the problem to be addressed (v. 4), out for the following reasons: (i) the parallels a set of instructions (vv.20-23), and the closing are too close to have derived from a common benediction (v. 25) have no counterparts in 2 Peter. oral source; (ii) a common written source is 2 Peter Jude also unlikely; and (iii) since there is so little of 1:2 2 1:5 3 Jude that is not common to 2 Peter, it is diffi1:12 5a cult to imagine why anyone should have 2:1–3:3 5b-19 written Jude in preference to the source from 3:14 24 which it would have been taken on this theory. Against (2), in addition to the improbability of anyone making such full use of one stretch of 2 Peter while ignoring the substance of the rest of the epistle, there is the serious objection that several passages of 2 Peter seem to be clearly secondary when compared with the parallel passages of Jude (e.g., 2 Pet 2:11//Jude 9; 2 Pet 2:12-10, 2 Pet 2:17//Jude 13). We may

378

Jude 1-25

Martin Luther on the Relationship of Jude and 2 Peter This relationship has been troubling for many generations. Martin Luther wrote these words in the 16th century (preface to Jude from his translation): Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere

else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith. Luther’s Works, “Preface to Jude” (55 vols.; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; St. Louis: Concordia, 1963) 35:398.

with confidence, then, conclude that (1) is correct, i.e., that the author of 2 Peter borrowed from Jude and that, therefore, Jude is earlier than 2 Peter. [Martin Luther on the Relationship of Jude and 2 Peter]

Not only is the material common to the two letters, but each reflects a similar organizational approach. Both letters (1) warn against false teachers; (2) use three illustrations of God’s judgment, two of which are identical (angels and Sodom and Gomorrah; (3) use Balaam as an example of false teachers; (4) characterize the false teachers as those who are defiant toward divine authority; (5) use materials from apocryphal writings; and (6) use the same strong metaphors to characterize the false teachers (i.e., irrational animals doomed to eternal darkness; spots and blemishes; arrogant boasters, etc.).

COMMENTARY Greeting, 1-2

Many letters from the Hellenistic period began with a threefold formula: (1) the name of the sender; (2) the name of the recipient; and (3) an opening salutation. Jewish letters were introduced in virtually the same manner, although the greeting tended to be more of a blessing invoked upon the reader. What Is a “Blessing” in the Biblical Tradition? The three elements of (a) author, (b) In the Bible, a blessing is depicted as a mark of God’s addressee, (c) greeting/blessing are relationship with a person or even a nation. When a person or group is blessed, it is a sign of God’s grace resting clearly seen at the beginning of most of upon them and sometimes even God’s presence among them. the New Testament letters just as they To be blessed means that a person or people take part in are here: (a) Jude; (b) to those who God’s plans for the world and humanity. Although it’s common have been called; (c) mercy, peace, and to think about God’s blessing humans, sometimes it is we who offer blessings to God. This is not done in order to wish love be yours in abundance (Jude 1-2). God well but rather as a part of prayers in praise and adoration of God. As with God’s blessing of humans, this activity also serves to help reconnect people with their heavenly Father.

[What Is a “Blessing” in the Biblical Tradition?]

Jude 1-25

Sender The writer introduces himself by name (Jude), by status (a servant of Jesus Christ), and by relationship (a brother of James).1 Name. The name Jude is an English variant of “Judas.” In English we distinguish Jude, the writer of the epistle, from Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus. But regardless of the negative connotations associated with the names, Judas was a common name. It was first borne by Judah, the son of Jacob and head of the tribe of Judah. The tribal head Judah is listed in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt 1:2-3; Luke 3:33); references to the name and the land of his tribe occur frequently in the New Testament (Matt 2:6; Luke 2:4; Heb 7:14; Rev 5:5; 7:5). Other persons mentioned in the New Testament who have the name Judas are

379

Jude

Johann Christoph Weigel. Woodcut. Published 1695. From “Biblia

ectypa: Bildnussen auss Heiliger Schrifft Alt und Neuen • Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts Testaments.” Image courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, 1:13), who was one of the twelve disciples Candler School of Theology, Emory University. and is also known as Thaddeus (cf. Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; also see John 14:22); • Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37), a revolutionary who was killed because of his subversive activities; • Judas Barsabbas, who was present at the Jerusalem Council and served as letter carrier to the Gentile churches (Acts 15:22, 27, 32); • A man at Damascus with whom Paul lodged in the street called Straight after his conversion experience (Acts 9:11); • Judas, an ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:33; see also v. 30); and • Judas, the brother of James and the brother of Jesus (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:8).

Status. The sender identifies himself as a servant. The Greek word translated “servant” denotes a “bond” servant who is the property of his master and thus not free to change masters. All Christians are slaves of God (Rom 6:22; 1 Pet 2:16), of Christ (Eph 6:6; cf. 1 Cor 7:22). They are not their own, but Christ’s (Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 6:19); for they have been bought with a price (1 Cor

380

Jude 1-25

6:20; 7:23). But when “servant of Jesus Christ” is used as a self-designation (cf. Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1), it is possible that, while the idea of belonging to Christ is fundamental, a reference to the writer’s special office (as apostle, teacher, etc.) may be intended. Relationship. The author further identifies himself as brother of James.2 The James referred to in v. 1 is almost certainly James “the Just,” a leader of the Jerusalem church who himself is universally believed to have been the brother of Jesus. Of course, this reference narrows down the list of potential authors listed above. The fact is that there are several men by each name, but there is only one combination of brothers by those names—the James and Jude listed as two of the four brothers of Jesus (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3). Indeed, most modern commentators agree upon the identity of the individual who claims to be the author; they disagree as to whether the claim is genuine, i.e., whether the author was in fact (1) the Jude referred to or (2) someone who used the name of Jude as a pseudonym. The problem of identifying the author has never been the lack of textual clarity; rather, it is whether or not the author used the name because it was his own or employed the name (of a more widely known individual) so that his writing would get a larger hearing. The latter hypothesis has prevailed in many of the more recent commentaries, if only because these commentators agree that the letter was written too late for Jude (the brother of James) to have been alive. So who wrote this letter? Since the epistle makes an internal claim of authorship, some interpreters insist that there must be sufficient evidence present to reject this claim. What would constitute such evidence? Some commentators argue that the author’s command of literary Greek is a trait more often found among Hellenistic Jews than among those of Palestine origin. Others point to the date of the letter as being too late to fit into the lifetime of any of Jesus’ brothers. One thing is certain: the authority of the letter rests upon the term “servant” (doulos), not upon identification of the writer with Jesus’ blood line. Thus, while it cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that Jude, the brother of James and Jesus, authored this letter. But at the end of the day, it is the message of the book that deserves our careful study regardless of the identity of its author.

Jude 1-25

The letter itself provides no evidence that the author functions as a spiritual father to a specific group of Christians. Yet the author apparently thinks that those to whom he writes need counsel and encouragement to oppose the doctrines of the false teachers. What should we conclude? We are left with two possibilities. Either the author of the epistle is a Jude nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament, in which case nothing more can be known about the name, or the author has written in the name of a New Testament man known as Jude, the brother of James. This can only be the brother of Jesus, although the author is modest enough not to identify himself in that way. Jude has authority enough through his relationship to James, the well-known leader of the Jerusalem church. In all likelihood a personal disciple of the Lord’s brother may well have written the epistle of Jude essentially in the spirit of his mentor. Recipients The epistle’s specific recipients, if any, are not mentioned; rather the author uses the generic “to those who have been called.” Perhaps the writer intends to identify his readers “theologically” rather than geographically (as Paul often did), i.e., “theological location” in relation to God’s activity toward them. That activity is expressed in three words that imply at least what God has done, is doing, and will do: (1) “God has called them.” “The called” has become a technical term within the Christian community, indicating those who have responded to the gospel. They have been called by God to be his people. That is, those who have been called are Christians. They have left the world of sin and have entered the light of life. (2) “Who are loved by God the Father.” Jude uses language that is similar to Paul’s letter to the Romans: “You . . . who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. To all in Rome who are loved by God” (1:6-7). When God calls sinners to himself through Jesus Christ, he as their Father expresses his love toward them. Those who are in the household of God through Christ experience the continual love of God the Father. (3) “And kept for Jesus Christ.” These words echo the prayer of Jesus concerning his disciples: “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me” (John 17:12). Jesus protects his followers from the evil one. The believers are being kept by God for the day of Jesus Christ. The Father protects the followers of Jesus from the attacks of Satan (John 11:15) and keeps them whole and complete

381

382

Jude 1-25

at the coming of Jesus Christ (1 Thess 5:23). Thus the author’s argument runs like this: believers (the called ones) are divinely protected (loved by God) in the present in view of Jesus’ victorious return (“kept for Jesus Christ”) to restore God’s dominion. Opening Salutation The tripartite formula called, beloved, and kept could possibly reflect an understanding of the servant songs of Isaiah (41:9; 42:1; 42:6). Jude omits “grace” (charis) in the salutation. The mercy, peace, and love included here may also be found in 1 and 2 Timothy. The usual form for the greeting in a Christian letter often included the phrase “grace and peace.” Jude expands the formula to produce the first of the triads that dominate the letter: “mercy, peace, and love.” This combination recurs in the Beloved The KJV reads “sanctified,” but modern concluding exhortation. The addressees, translations have “beloved.” Since “beloved,” are to build up their faith by keeping believers are both sanctified by God and beloved themselves in the love of God and awaiting the by God, either reading would suffice. To sanctify mercy of Jesus (vv. 20-21). Thus, the greeting means “to make holy,” i.e., “separate.” Paul wrote about the Corinthian Christians, some of whom telegraphs the wish the author has for his had been egregious sinners, “But you were readers. If the letter succeeds, then mercy, peace, washed, but you were sanctified, but you were and love will be multiplied in the community. justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). Christians abide in God’s love that is multiplied (Jude 2). They are told, “Keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21). “Beloved” carries the meaning of people loved by God and also by the writer. It is a term of special endearment used to refer to those who are close to and have a special relationship with God. The word carries the meaning of someone who cares deeply for another. Using the title “beloved” underscores the importance of what the writer is about to say in his letter. The word says, “The message that follows comes from my heart and shows my concern for you. It is a message of great importance.”

[Beloved]

Many translators give the reader a paraphrase of the text because the literal translation is a bit difficult to grasp. The exact translation is, “May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you” (NASB). Since the idea of multiplying abstract qualities is not easily comprehended, many translators simply express Jude’s statement by calling for an increase in “mercy, love, and peace.” In his two epistles, Peter has an apostolic greeting that features the same ending: “Grace and peace be yours in abundance” (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:21). Peter, however, follows the conventional norm of greeting someone with the words “grace and peace.” (See Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm 3.) The greeting “grace, mercy, and peace” was customary also (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; 2 John 3).

Jude 1-25 Purpose, 3-4

These two verses may be among the most important statements for interpreting the letter. Here the author expresses the goal of his letter as well as the strategy he will use to make the argument. The author has a twofold purpose: (1) to warn the community of the false teachers whose presence threatens its existence, and (2) to strengthen the community so that it can resist these intruders and retain their divinely ordained calling. These dual tracts (intruders and dear friends) are linked linguistically and conceptually in these verses and in the remainder of the letter. The readers are addressed as “beloved” in v. 3 and in vv. 17, 20. The terms “faith” (v. 20), “salvation/save” (v. 23), and “holiness” (v. 20) all echo the concern that the community of saints are the “beloved.” Then Jude v. 4 connects to vv. 5-19 by the repetition of the terms “judgment” (vv. 6, 9, 15) and “ungodly” (vv. 15, 18). References to immorality (vv. 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18) and to the denial of proper authority (vv. 5, 6, 8, 9, 16-18, 19) also underscore the connection. Thus, from the outset, Jude displays two goals: to expose the false teachers and to challenge the beloved to a life of faith. “Dear friends.” Jude refers to his readers by employing a common greeting of that day (cf. vv. 17, 20). The term literally means “beloved.” He puts this greeting in the context of the address (“to those . . . who are loved by God,” v. 1) and the blessing (“mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance,” v. 2). “I was very eager.” Apparently the author never intended to write this letter! Proposing to write about the salvation we share, he was forced to write this short letter instead when he learned of a dangerous heresy. So instead of the pastoral letter he had envisioned, he found himself writing a scathing repudiation of the heresy and those who perpetuated it. The grammar suggests the task was somewhat unwelcome but nonetheless necessary. The language conveys the impression that the author was already engaged in the writing. “Salvation we share.” This “common salvation” may have actually been the title of the proposed treatise that Jude was in the process of writing when he had to turn to the present letter. This “common salvation” could be understood as a reference to Gentile Christians, whereas Jude was a Jewish Christian, hence the salvation we all have in common. While such may be the case, it cannot be pressed. At any rate, it would have been a great boon for Christian literature

383

384

Jude 1-25

if the author had been able to complete the treatise and if it had been preserved. “To contend.” The term means to “agonize over.” It was the word for military or athletic hand-to-hand wrestling with an opponent. They were to fight for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. In this instance the “faith” seems to refer to a body of beliefs, as we might mean when we use the Delivered expression “the Christian faith.” Such may be The term here translated “delivered” is the meaning in Titus 1:4, though this specific actually a Greek word that means “to usage is rare in the New Testament. The word hand over.” It implies a specific source (the saints) and destination (the readers of this “delivered” was the word for the passing from epistle). This “faith” that is being “handed on” one to another of the teaching that began with must be proclaimed, or “contended for.” Today, it Jesus and was continued by the apostles and appears that some think “contending for” the missionaries. [Delivered] faith means rolling the Bible into a bludgeon with which to beat people over the head. Somehow “The faith that was once for all entrusted to the these people have come to think that one must saints” might read “the faith that was once for all be contentious in “contending for” the faith traditioned to the saints.” For what is at stake is almost with a biblical negativism that is judgthe central body of beliefs, the tradition itself. mental at its core. Is this what our writer has in mind? Certainly not. He is simply talking about the Some may lament the passing of those lively need for proclaiming the truth in both word and first-century Christians whose faith was not deed. He would say to the defenders of the “the” faith but instead a trusting, vital relationScripture, “The Scripture needs no defense.” Just ship with God through Jesus Christ, but that proclaim it through word and deed and it will defend itself. This is the way the word of God is. If would be a false dichotomy. Both faith and the we begin to proclaim it, it will defend itself. faith were present among believers in these early days. Paul summarizes the core content of what we believe in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Such formulas as these were present early in the Christian mission. Faith is not a vague and general feeling. It has content. In this little letter, contenders for the faith are also expected to love, pray, grow, hope, and demonstrate mercy toward others. Their faith is never to be trivialized by being reduced to a doctrinal dispute. “Once for all” has a ring of finality about it. By the time the epistle Jude was being written, the teachings of Christ and his apostles had reached such a point of crystallization that loyalty to these expressions of the faith was regarded as “orthodox” and departure from them was heresy. The writer is thinking not so much of a creed but rather an erroneous and unacceptable mode of conduct that is the result of faulty beliefs. So the present less-finished treatise has been substituted for the one planned because of the danger of the present situation; that is, there are those who refuse to follow

Jude 1-25

the teachings of the faith and are ready to lead others in this heretical vein. The author suggests that there is in the Christian faith an unchangeable quality. Of course each age has to rediscover and rethink the faith—to experience the faith for itself; however, this letter suggests that there is a permanent and unchanging nucleus of the faith. That center is Jesus Christ, who came into the world and lived and died to bring salvation to all people. While written to address issues of false doctrine being raised by those inside the Christian community, the book of Jude, nonetheless, can also be helpful today when believers are called upon to speak to the claims made by those outside the faith, i.e., modernday cults. Many of the false doctrines espoused today are addressed in this tiny letter of Jude. For example, Mormonism insists that the revelation that God gave us did not stop with the New Testament, but that we need new books and further revelations in order to understand it all. But Jude answers this claim when he writes, “I want you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It was given to us through the apostles at one particular time in history, and there are to be no additions. “Admission has been secretly gained.” Certain individuals had wormed their way into the Christian community. They had crept in “unawares.” The Greek term (pareisedysan) is a word often used to describe the specious and seductive words of a clever pleader, perhaps in a courtroom where these “pleadings” seep gradually into the minds of a judge and jury. The term may also describe a fugitive slipping secretly back into the country from which he has been expelled. Sometimes the term is used to describe the slow and subtle entry of “innovations” into a given culture. These innovations finally undermine and break down the traditional laws of that culture. The word always calls to mind a secret, stealthy, gradual, and subtle injection of something evil into a given culture or other group. “Long ago designated for condemnation.” If the author is thinking of a specific Scripture text, he does not cite it.3 Perhaps the reference is not to any single Scripture in particular but to the thrust of prophetic Scripture in general. This idea would clarify why the author proceeds to substantiate their sins (vv. 5-19), citing various prophetic examples. Thus the “condemnation” refers forward to verses 5-19 where Jude will both describe the individuals and their

385

386

Jude 1-25

specific sins utilizing various prophetic examples. He also identifies the judgment to be imposed upon them. “Ungodly persons.” There is a contemptuous ring in the phrase “ungodly persons”; these individuals have stolen their way into the community. The threat is real. The author calls his readership to their responsibility to face up to this threat. Description of the False Teachers as Sinners, 5-7

Next, the author describes the certainty of the judgment upon any who fail to live out the faith. Examples from the Hebrew Bible make it abundantly clear that status alone is no guarantee of a saving relationship with God. These false teachers, and any who follow them, are sinners and must face the consequences of their actions. “Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed” is much more than a way of complimenting his readers on their knowledge (such as may be seen in Rom 15:14, 15; 1 Thess 4:9; 1 John 2:21, 27), Rather, this phase has theological significance by calling to mind how the author’s readers were thoroughly instructed at the time of their conversion. What they learned then was definitive and complete and therefore does not require any supplementing. Therefore the author does not provide fresh information, as perhaps the false teachers would do, but only reminds his readers of their past. The author follows with three examples from Jewish history: 1. “[The] Lord,4 who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” The story presupposes that God considered Israel his “chosen” people. Thus a highly privileged nation witnessed many astounding “mighty acts” by God that effected their deliverance from slavery. Yet some of these same people refused to trust God’s visible leadership. The Old Testament narrative describes how God later destroyed the unbelievers in the desert (Num 14:29-37; Heb 3:17-19). The author of Jude reminds his readers that all the people who were twenty years of age and older, but who did not believe, died in the desert. By rejecting the guidance God offered, they came to experience God’s wrath. That anger was expressed through severe punishment: many Israelites were forsaken by God and per-

Jude 1-25

387

ished in the desert. This reminder constiFallen Angels tutes a pointed and stern warning to take God’s judgment seriously! 2. Even angels (the most spiritual of beings) were punished when they disobeyed God. Genesis 6 reflects the legend of the fallen angels who married the daughters of men and begot children by them. This story is alluded to in the pseudepigraphical books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees and in the apocryphal book of Baruch. Our author likely draws upon the version of the story found in 1 Enoch where there is an account of 200 angels who conspire to leave heaven, descend to the earth, and enter into sexual unions with women there. These sexual encounters gave rise to a hybrid race of giants Gustave Doré (1832–1883). The Fall of the Rebel Angels, from Book 1 of Paradise Lost by John Milton, 1886. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, known as the Nephilim. Due to the evil PD-Art (PD-old-100)] they brought into the world, God sent the archangels Raphael and Gabriel to the earth to bind the rebellious angels “for 70 generations” and keep them in “eternal chains in deepest darkness” (Jude 6) until the day of judgment. The author uses the story of the wicked angels to illustrate God’s judgment upon wicked people of his day. Thus the fallen angels constitute an example to those who forsake their “proper role” and commit fornication with earthly beings. According to our author, certain Christians among them have forsaken their evangelical fellowship and now conform to a heathen way of life. It is clear from the fate of the fallen angels who are in eternal bonds in horrible darkness until the end of time that God’s punishment for such transgression will last until the final judgment. (See “The Parousia and Datesetters” in the connections section below.) 3. The third example of rebellion is perhaps the most vivid because throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are used as symbols of immorality and are known because of their lasting destruction by fire. This illustration, too, parallels 2 Peter’s use of God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Lot. The disbelieving people of Israel were swallowed up by the wilderness; the fallen and

388

Jude 1-25

immoral angels were swallowed up by darkness; the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were swallowed up by fire. The total is a warning of judgment. [Sodom and Gomorrah] Application and Examples, 8-13

In the second part of the reply to the scoffers, the faithful are challenged to remember God’s eternity and not try to calculate his times by human measurements. Psalm 90:4 is quoted, but it is expanded in such a way as to rule out the possibility of taking the meaning to be merely that God’s time is measured on a bigger scale than ours. The three examples recited above provide ample evidence of the consequences of rebellion against the will of God. Now the author offers additional detail of these godless individuals who “pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Sodom and Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah were two of a group of five towns, the Pentapolis: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. The Pentapolis region is also collectively referred to as “the Cities of the Plain” (Gen 13:12) since they were all sited on the plain of the River Jordan, in an area that constituted the southern limit of the lands of the Canaanites (Gen 10:19). Lot, a nephew of Abram (Abraham). chose to live in Sodom because of the proximity of good grazing for his flocks (Gen 13:5-11). In Genesis 18, God sends three angels who appear as men to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. God reveals to Abraham that he will investigate Sodom and Gomorrah, because their cry is great, “and because their sin is very grievous” (vv. 20-21). In response, Abraham reverently inquires of God if he would spare the city if 50 righteous people were found in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even 10, with God affirming he would not destroy it after each request, for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. The two angels of God proceed to Sodom and are met by Abraham’s righteous nephew Lot, who extends hospitality of his home to them. Genesis 19:4-5 describes what followed: “But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them’” (NIV: “can have sex with them”; NJB: “can have intercourse with them”).

In response, Lot refuses to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom, and instead offers them his two virgin daughters to “do to them whatever you like” (Gen 19:8, NASB). However, the men of Sodom refuse this offer and threaten to do worse to Lot than they would have done to his guests. Lot’s angelic guests rescue him and strike the men with blindness. They then command Lot to gather his family and leave, revealing their intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. As they make their escape, the angels command Lot and his family not to look back under any circumstance; however, Lot’s wife ignores their warning and looks back longingly at the city and becomes a pillar of salt. For the sins of their inhabitants, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen 19:24-25). In Christianity and Islam, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God’s wrath. The term “Sodom” has been used as a metaphor for vice and sexual deviation. The story has given rise to words in several languages, including the English word “sodomy,” a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe non-vaginal intercourse as well as bestiality. John Keating Wiles, “Sodom/Gommorah/Cities of the Plain,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills; Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 839–40.

Jude 1-25

Lord, Jesus Christ” (v. 4). He concludes that God’s judgment falls upon those who rebel and demonstrates that, despite the evidence of divine judgment, his contemporaries are unwilling to listen to reason and thus invite eternal punishment. The participial phrase translated “these men in their dreamings” governs all the verbs in the remainder of the sentence and suggests that the intruders claimed insights based upon their dreams. These “revelations” produced variations in teaching and behavior, which the intruders say were deeper understandings of the truth, but which the author sees as aberrations of the faith. He, therefore, levels a threefold charge against them: they defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. The charges that the intruders “defile the flesh” and “reject authority” echo the defiant behaviors described in vv. 5-7. The verb “defile” was sometimes used to refer to acts of ceremonial pollution, but in conjunction with “the flesh” it takes on the meaning of sexual immorality. Our author likely has this connotation in mind here. Moreover, they reject authority (i.e., “flout” authority), thus displaying the arrogance and pride that runs through all three examples cited above. In view of their denial of the Lordship of Jesus (v. 4), the heretics, like the Israelites, the fallen angels, and the Sodomites, were essentially rejecting the Lordship of Christ even though the manifestation of this rejection may have been seen in ecclesiastical insubordination. The final charge, “they revile the glorious ones,” is a somewhat difficult construction since the specific identity of the “glorious ones” is not clear; however, the author’s central point is obvious. The intruders have no clue as to the magnitude or source of the power they oppose, and they will ultimately bear the consequences. The third and perhaps most important part of the refutation of the scoffers sets the period between the early church and the consummation of history clearly and firmly under the aegis of God’s patience (cf. v. 15, where the cognate noun is used). What holds back the end of history is not any weakness, vacillation, dilatoriness, or slackness on God’s part but rather God’s patience that waits to give humankind the time to hear the gospel and to believe (cf. Ezek 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4). Our author points out rather graphically how, as in the cases of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, these false teachers are trying to lead others into immorality and away from their calling. These false teachers are motivated by jealousy and

389

390

Jude 1-25

pride—a pride so great that it cannot tolerate any knowledge or power greater than its own. Note that v. 11 constitutes a woe oracle, a form of speech found frequently among the Old Testament prophets. The woe oracle was flexible in form and was often adapted in various ways including its use as a lament: “alas!” (Matt 24:19). It developed into a prophetic pronouncement of judgment upon sinners as here.5

Korah’s Rebellion

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

A Prophecy Adapted from Enoch, 14-16

The enigmatic statement found in Genesis 5:24 that “Enoch walked with God; and then he was no more, because God took him” has been Domenico Beccafumi (1486–1551). The Punishment of Korah, Dathan, and understood to mean that Enoch did Abiram. Duomo, Pisa, Italy. (Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY) not die but was taken from the earth by God while still alive. Later Jewish Book of Enoch The Book of Enoch (also called 1 Enoch) interpreters focused upon Enoch’s assumed, is a pseudepigraphical work, i.e., not a privileged status, which they took to be at least part of Scripture (except within the Ethiopian implied by God’s having “taken” him. They Orthodox Church). The work is ascribed to Enoch, refined the notion and concluded that Enoch the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Gen 5:18). It was common practice in antiquity must have been privy to God’s will and wisdom. for books to be ascribed to the person about They argued that by divine sanction, Enoch whom the work was written. Thus the term could reveal this knowledge to human beings apseudo (“false”) is used in the name for the still on earth. Certain elements from this tradigrouping of books into which Enoch is placed. Scholars argue that the work was composed tion showed up in Jewish apocalyptic thought between 300–100 BC. Fragments of the book that gave rise to pseudepigraphical writings such were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is as 1 Enoch, which our author quotes here.6 [Book generally assumed that the work was widely known in the first century of the Christian era. It circulated originally in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew. Some scholars theorize that its author consulted an Aramaic copy of 1 Enoch and translated into Greek the verses he needed. E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha; ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City NY; Doubleday & Company, 1983) 5–90.

of Enoch]

Our author refers to Enoch as “the seventh generation from Adam.” He has employed a Semitic form of counting that begins with the progenitor, hence Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch. The author does not mean to imply that Enoch’s antiquity alone

Jude 1-25

391

imbues him with authority. Rather he is stressing The Prophet Enoch the number seven, considered in Hebrew and Christian tradition to be a perfect number. As the “seventh” one, Enoch is uniquely blessed, and his words have a special authority. Image Not There are two other references in the New Testament to the Enoch mentioned in Genesis Available (Luke 3:37; Heb 11:5), but no other New due to lack of digital rights. Please view the Testament writer quotes from the writing that published commentary takes his name. The book of Jude quotes Enoch’s or perform an Internet prophecy as dramatic evidence of the impending search using the punishment upon the false teachers. Apparently credit below. the Book of Enoch was well known in the first century, and Enoch himself was remembered as one “who walked with God” (Gen 5:22, 24). Here the Lord has come to bring judgment upon Wiligelmo da Modena (c. 1099–c.1120). Tablet with inscription recording the foundation of the cathedral: “The the ungodly, their character, and their behavior Prophet Enoch.” Duomo, Modena, Italy. (Credit: Ghigo The phrase “to execute judgment on all” in v. Roli, 1999. Franco Cosimo Panini Editore ©Management Fratelli Alinari; Alinari/Art Resource, NY) 15 clearly indicates the parameters of the final judgment. The author insists that all Christians must “contend earnestly for the faith” because, in the end, all will be judged. The phrase “execute judgment” is only used here and in John 5:27, where Jesus states that he will be a part of this final judgment. The term “grumblers” in v. 16 (see Exod 16:2, 9) calls to mind the experience of the Israelites as they wandered aimlessly in the wilderness. These false teachers are chronic faultfinders who, while incessantly complaining about others, follow their own lustful desires without regard for others.7 A Prophecy Adapted from the Apostles, 17-19

Other than a brief comment on the divisiveness of the godless persons, the author has now concluded the major section of the letter. Here he makes a transition from his indictment of the heretics (vv. 5-16) to addressing his readers directly (vv. 17-23). The central section of the letter (vv. 5-16) details his specific condemnation of ungodly men (v. 4). In this concluding section of the letter, the author writes about the salvation for the believers (v. 3). While the readers of this epistle may not be familiar with the Enoch tradition, they certainly know what they were taught by the

392

Jude 1-25

apostles. So here the writer calls them to their more immediate experiences and challenges them to recall the “predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . .” “Remember.” The admonition to “remember” closely parallels the text in Peter’s second letter: “that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles” (3:2). “Remember” is a direct command. Earlier (v. 5), the writer’s words had been encouraging and supportive when he commended his readers for their knowledge of Old Testament teaching. But at this juncture, a direct command is necessary because their seeming willingness to overlook the factual knowledge of their own history is detrimental to their salvation. The challenge, then, is for the reader to remember the message of the gospel. In such memory lies the courage to defend themselves against the attacks of the false teachers.8 “Beloved.” The author addresses the original recipients of his letter. He has already cautioned them regarding those godless persons whom God has condemned (vv. 4, 7, 13). Now his mood shifts and he speaks to his readers more tenderly with the expression “beloved.” He uses this term three times (vv. 3, 17, 20). “Apostles.” That the author means the original twelve disciples is clearly implied by the phrase “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” though no specific names are mentioned. Not much is known about the ministries of these men except for the missionary labors of Peter. “Message.” The text literally has “predictions of the apostles.” Apparently, then, the author has in mind not the entirety of the gospel but rather certain specific sayings of the apostles. It is possible that the author has recorded one of these sayings in v. 18, though the specific tradition quoted remains unknown. Yet we can assume that the apostles were obviously aware of the approaching last days. In his farewell message at Ephesus, for example, Paul says, “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). In any event, the reference is expressed as a warning. That such persons as these would appear among the faithful is itself a sign that the “end times” are near.9 “Scoffers.” The expression “scoffer” is a pejorative word that refers to those who ignore or twist all the precepts of the Law (Ps 1:1; Prov 1:22; 9:7-8). In both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought we find the idea that, in the last days, the wicked will come to the fore and, indeed, gain the upper hand. The idea is so well known that the author does not need to cite a specific

Jude 1-25

prophecy. He has merely created the words attributed to the apostles out of the earlier description of the opponents. These false teachers cause serious divisions within the community by setting themselves up as superior to ordinary Christians. Jude maintains that these ungodly people are devoid of the Spirit. The Appeal, 20-23

All that has come before has pointed the reader to this final appeal. Here Jude offers an exhortation to the faithful, a kind of “Christian antidote” to countermand the work of the false teachers. This appeal to action begins “But you, beloved” to heighten the contrast between the faithful and the false teachers. The contrast is further sharpened when he adds praying in the Holy Spirit as a quantifier for the faithful. This theme calls to mind a similar note found in the writings of Paul (Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 12:3; Gal 4:6; Eph 6:18). The referent here is in no way equivocal since the false teachers are without the Spirit. Jude offers these specific ingredients for his “antidote”: (1) build yourselves up on [the] most holy faith; (2) pray in the Holy Spirit; (3) keep yourselves in the love of God; (4) look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ (hope). The last few verses of his letter, in contrast with the lengthy discourse about the wickedness of the apostates, are brief and to the point. In a series of four commands, his readers are exhorted to cultivate the familiar Christian virtues of faith, prayer, love, and hope. Again (cf. v. 17) the author contrasts the false teachers with his readers. In this verse, with a pastoral tenderness and affection, he addresses the recipients as “beloved,” or “dear friends,” e.g., beloved by God (v. 1). After describing in detail the totally destructive life of the false teachers, he challenges his readers with four commands. 1. “Build yourselves up on the most holy faith.” While the false teachers cause division within the community, the author challenges his readers to build up each other spiritually and thereby to strengthen the community and create unity. The readers are to continue to “build” themselves up on the foundation of the most holy faith. Note the reference to the building trade. The believers are to construct the foundation of their spiritual house upon faith. Faith is the first virtue in the series of four listed in vv. 20-21. The author, near the end of his brief letter, has returned to the subject

393

394

Jude 1-25

of faith with which he began his epistle: “Beloved, . . . I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3). Thus it can be said that the letter of Jude begins and ends with the subject of faith. This faith is the body of Christian doctrines that the apostles taught (Acts 2:42) and the false teachers sought to undermine. Verses 3 and 20 complement each other since the beginning of his letter urges the readers to contend for the faith “that was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3), and v. 20 exhorts the believers to build themselves up in the “most holy faith.” Note the adjective “holy” describing the faith his readers are challenged to build. Its root meaning is “separate,” i.e., “different” from all other types of a similar kind. That which is “holy” is set apart, by definition, from other things in its class (e.g., the Sabbath is different from other days of the week). The Christian faith is different from other faiths and from philosophies in that it is not a product of the minds of humans (opinion) but rather a revelation. It is different from other faiths because of its power to transform those who believe it and to render them different from their previous selves. This “most holy faith” is different because it is derived through a unique revelation from God and because of its unique transforming power in the lives of those who believe it. (See “Legalism” in the connections section.) 2. “Pray in the Holy Spirit.” This exhortation creates a second contrast with the false teachers. They are “worldly people” who do not possess the Spirit (v. 19). But the readers are guided by God’s Spirit, and thus their prayers are sincere and genuine. The language here may suggest a communal prayer that is under the control of the Spirit. As such, the call is for a prayer that is faithful to God’s will (Rom 8:26-27; 1 Cor 12:3). St. Paul admonished his readers, “Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication” (Eph 6:18). Paul is thus suggesting that prayer is a weapon to oppose the spiritual attacks of Satan. 3. “Keep yourselves in the love of God.” Even though our author prays that divine love, together with God’s mercy and peace, may fill those who read his letter (v. 2), as the false teachers have shown, it is possible to turn one’s back upon that love. So here the author admonishes his readers to hold up their side of the equation: to cultivate and nourish that love relationship with God. The emphasis is placed upon their contribution to this love relationship. The lan-

Jude 1-25

guage may mean either “God’s love for them” or “their love for God.” The phrase points to a theological certainty: the love of which Jude writes is literally a two-way street. God comes to people and surrounds them with divine love; in response, people come to God with human love. The command recalls Jesus’ words, “I loved you; abide in my love. . . . If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love” (John 15:9-10). The false teachers had not held up their end, falling out of love with God and, as a consequence, with others as well. So amid the uncertainties, difficulties, and temptations that surround the believers, Jude admonishes them to keep themselves within the circle of God’s love and literally to stay in that sphere. Christians are recipients of this love when they strive to do God’s will by loving God with heart, soul, and mind and by loving their neighbors as themselves (see Matt 22:3739). 4. “Wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” The last of the four commands concerns hope. It looks forward to Christ’s mercy. Although the word itself does not appear in the text, hope precisely expresses the idea. As human beings and as Christians, we live by hope. Anticipation is not only the greatest single pleasure, but anticipation also empowers us to live a quality life in the present. Hope does not mean we put things off while singing about the “Sweet By and By.” We will never say nonchalantly that “one of these days the Messiah will come and all these problems will disappear.” Such an ill-founded concept of hope puts the load upon God. But for thoughtful Christians, hope stirs us to life and empowers us to commit ourselves to work on important things as we anticipate that great doxology at the final Advent of God. It is precisely the anticipation of this kind of mercy that creates in us the quality that characterizes our relationships with others. In vv. 20-21, our author gathers up the three Christian virtues of faith, (including prayer), hope, and love (see 1 Cor 13:13) and presents a balanced pattern for Christian living. Verses 22-23 abruptly shift the focus to the way in which the readers should respond toward those have been taken in, to greater and lesser degrees, by the false teachers. The text here is uncertain, and it is not immediately clear whether the author refers to two or three groups of individuals. If we are to understand three groups, Jude’s advice becomes progressively more drastic: (1) those who

395

396

Jude 1-25

have not made up their minds—they must be convinced by argument; (2) those who are already involved with the false teachers—spare no effort in trying to rescue these (save others by snatching them out of the fire, v. 23); (3) those who have strayed so far they are only to be pitied—these must be feared by the faithful so as to avoid contamination. Closing Doxology, 24-25

Beyond the responsibilities of the recipients is the sure presence of God’s support and protection that in effect guarantees that their efforts to avoid spiritual heresy will not be in vain. These closing words call to mind an eschatological celebration of worship. The believers celebrate the final consequences of God’s purposes; that is, they are found to be a suitable sacrifice before God. This brief and sometimes caustic epistle ends with a doxology that reflects a quiet beauty of its own. It is a kind of benediction that offers a tribute to the one who is able to keep us from “falling”—a most meaningful assurance in light of the heresy that threatened Jude’s readers. “To keep you from falling.” Our author concludes by stating the obvious: God is the only one who has the ability to keep his followers from falling. Those who abide in God’s word will never fall. On the contrary, those who allow themselves to be taken in by the words of false teachers will find themselves Falling “fallen.” The verb translated “keep” could The term translated “falling” is a word that means “slipping,” as used of both of perhaps better have been translated “guard” or a surefooted horse that does not stumble and of a “protect.” [Falling] person who is a good and thus does not fall into “Without blemish before the presence of his glory error. The psalmist has written of God’s loving with rejoicing.” And so it is that the saints who care: “He will not let your foot slip” (Ps 121:3, NIV). To walk with God is to walk in safety even endure the destructive heresies of the false on the most dangerous and the most slippery teachers are to be presented before God as path. When mountaineers tackle a daring climb, redeemed and sanctified in the presence of his they rope themselves together so that if one glory (i.e., “splendor”). The term translated climber slips, the others take the weight and no one falls. The author calls us to bind ourselves to “with rejoicing” calls to mind the exultation at God who will “keep us from falling.” the heavenly banquet. So when the readers of this epistle encounter this verse, a “great rejoicing” will reverberate within them if they have remained true to the faith and not fallen prey to the error of the false teachers. “To the only God.” The one to whom this benedictory tribute is made is identified as the “only God.” This phrase may have a

Jude 1-25

special meaning as it stands in stark contrast to the gnostics’ endless list of demigods. “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The phrase “God our Savior” may strike the reader as unusual because, typically, Christians associate the word “Savior” with Jesus Christ. Yet in this instance our author relates the term “Savior” to God. Actually, he is not alone in doing so (see Luke 1:47; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4). Thus, in the final analysis, the Christian is provided with a great and comforting certainty: there is a God whose name is Savior. The epistle of Jude makes it clear to both the Christian and the false teacher that only through the acceptance of Jesus as Lord can there be a meaningful relationship with God. “Be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority.” The author sets over against every political authority on earth the only God from eternity to eternity who has all glory, majesty, power, and authority. This conclusion of the epistle of Jude is masterfully crafted. It catapults the readers’ thoughts from the earthly to highest heavenly realms, where God is enthroned amid eternal majesty and honor. Our conflicts with the temporal forces of evil on earth must always be seen through the prism of God’s “glory” (splendor), “majesty” (grandeur), “dominion” (sovereignty), and “authority” (will). With these powerful words, Jude shows the absolute greatness of the only God whom all Christians must serve.10 Jude has demonstrated in this short epistle the central requirement that all Christians are to “contend for the faith.” He has shown the punishment in store for those who go beyond the faith and the reward given to those who maintain the proper relationship with God. He has shown the vileness of the false teachers, while also urging the Christians of his day to remain true to the word. Finally, Jude has shown that the true source of salvation is obedient faith in Jesus Christ.

CONNECTIONS The small book of Jude continues to offer the church today important guidance in several matters. Perhaps two chronic problems faced by the church receive the most relevant direction from Jude, namely: (1) the ongoing tendency of some Christians either to dis-

397

398

Jude 1-25

count the idea of Christ’s return (parousia) or to become fixated on predicting it, and (2) the lingering appeal of legalism. The Parousia and the “Date-Setters”

The New Testament concept of the “imminence” of the Parousia (Christ’s Second Coming) is different from the concept we often encounter in modern theology. We see clearly in 2 Peter 3 that the false teachers have assumed a radical and unbiblical interpretation of imminence holding that the notion requires Christ to return shortly after his resurrection. Since he did not, they proceeded to reject the idea of the Parousia altogether! The author responds by reasserting the biblical perspective against the misunderstanding of the false teachers. He reminds his readers that God’s timetable is not ours and that what we might regard as an intolerable delay is a mere moment from God’s perspective. In reality, this nearly two-thousand-year-old text exposes the obvious error in the contemporary practice of “date-setting.” Datesetters have arisen throughout the history of the Christian church from time to time. These individuals claim to have received a vision from God or to have solved the Parousia puzzle on their own. They proceed to identify an exact date for the Parousia, or, more generally, the end of the world. Throughout Christian history, some interpreters, for example, understood Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to refer to a thousand-year messianic age. Thus they became certain that Christ would return in AD 1000. A notable case in more recent times was Edgar Whisenant’s 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 (more than 42 million copies sold!). Whisenant, a little-known Bible student at the time, predicted that the end would occur sometime between September 11 and September 13, 1988. As the great day approached, regular programming on the Christian Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN) was interrupted to provide special instructions on preparation to the faithful! Of course, the end did not occur. Following this 1988 debacle, Whisenant published further books listing the “real” date in 1989, 1993, and 1994. These books did not sell in quantity. Many observers point out that those who calculate the “end time” all select a date in the near term. How many copies of a book would sell if it predicted the end time to come during the year 5000?

Jude 1-25

We may be thankful that such self-appointed date-setters do serve to remind Christians that the Parousia could occur at any time. But we must deplore and reject their assumption to know the exact date, which even Jesus himself did not know. Tragically, many sincere Christians have been led astray by these date-setters. Convinced that the end of history is just around the corner, Christians have sold property and houses, quit jobs, and generally dropped out of society. The failure of the predicted world’s end has meant for them not only spiritual uncertainty but economic disaster. The Christian church has continued on through one after the other of these date-setting episodes. The dates are set, they come, and they are gone. History has proven all of them wrong. The tragedy is that other dates will certainly be offered in the years to come. Legalism

“Legalism” may be defined as the social or self-acceptance of the observance of law and conformity to its requirements as the sole basis for the theological determination of an individual’s spiritual condition or destiny. In the New Testament, the antonym for “legalism” is the gospel of grace (the good news) whereby the presence of the Spirit of God indwells an individual, allowing for the character of God to be expressed in the behavior of that person through the dynamic empowering and enabling of the Spirit of the risen Lord Jesus. Even though the term “legalism” does not occur in the Bible, the concept is found there fairly frequently (see for example, Isa 29:13 [quoted in Matt 15:8, 9; Mark 7:6, 7]; Matt 5:20-28; 23:1-28; Gal 2:11-21; 3:1-3; Col 2:16-23). Ultimately, legalism derives value from the obedient act itself, rather than from loyalty to or love for God. Thus the legalist is perfectly content to devote total attention to intricacies of the law with seldom a thought about the Lawgiver. To speak about the empowerment of God’s Spirit as an enabler for living the Christian life is to speak a foreign language to the legalist. Their talk is always about which specific action is permitted and which is forbidden. A legalist’s central concern is that people do what the Scriptures say while being unconcerned about seeking the pleasure of and fellowship with the Lord. One need only do what

399

400

Jude 1-25

God says and all will be well. Whether or not a specific act expresses love for God is irrelevant in legalism. Legalism exalts law above all other considerations. Mercy, justice, and goodness take a back seat to the rigid obedience to endless sets of rules. In terms of human behavior and specific courses of action, the legalist’s greatest fears are those pesky “gray areas.” Moses’ Law required that the Sabbath be kept “holy” (i.e., “different” from all the other days), and thus through centuries of interpretation the consensus emerged that keeping this day “different” from the other six meant there was to be no work performed on the Sabbath. Further quantification was required, however, to define “work.” Does this or that specific activity constitute “work,” and is it thus forbidden on the Sabbath? Legalists have a passion for specific definition, and so many types of activities were classified as work and thus forbidden on the Sabbath. For instance, to carry a burden on the Sabbath Day was to work. But what was a burden? The law defined a burden as food equal in weight to a dried fig, enough wine for mixing in a goblet, milk enough for one swallow, honey enough to put upon a wound, oil enough to anoint a small member, paper enough on which to write a customs notice, ink enough to The Disciples Plucking Corn on the Sabbath write two letters of the alphabet, reed enough to make a pen, and on and on. These and countless other “interpretations” clearly expose the fatal flaw inherent in legalism. There is literally no end to the specifics! Jesus spoke clearly to the issue when his disciples were accused of working on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-12). There in the grain field when the disciples satisfied their hunger by harvesting the food they needed, Jesus taught that any use of the Sabbath law that bypassed human need was an illegitimate use. In Mark’s rendition of the account, Jesus’ words strike at the heart of legalism: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Jesus’ personal Gustave Doré (1832–1883). The Disciples Plucking Corn on the Sabbath. 19th C. Engraving. (Credit: www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/)

Jude 1-25

conflict with the Scribes and Pharisees over this central issue certainly contributed to his death. Paul’s relentless battle against legalism in the church ultimately resulted in his death also. We must make no mistake about this fundamental fact: legalism always results in death. Unfortunately, the spiritual war against legalism continues today. Indeed, legalism exists in virtually every Christian’s life, although certainly in varying degrees. Our peaceful coexistence with it betrays the heart of the gospel and counts the sacrifice paid by Jesus Christ to eradicate it from the life of every Christian as nothing. Jesus died to set us free from the law and its impossible demands. The apostle Paul challenges us to cherish the freedom Christ purchased for us and never return to the bondage of legalism (Gal 5:1). Jesus and Paul stand forever as our examples for fighting the deadly spiritual virus of legalism. When Paul wrote “the letter kills but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6), he was referring to the tendency of legalism to kill faith, hope, joy, love, and spiritual life in general. In some cases legalism actually murders those who reject it. History records many events in which human life was sacrificed at the altar of the law of God. The Crusades and the Salem witch trials are two horrific examples of the death dealing inherent in legalism. Jesus looked legalists in the eye and called them hypocrites, brood of vipers, blind guides, etc. (Matt 23). In a literal sense, he died to set us free from the choking hold of legalism. Unfortunately, legalists have often appealed to the book of Jude to buttress their assaults on other Christians. Jude’s admonition “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3) has been used to justify vicious attacks on perceived instances of insufficient orthodoxy. Typically, in recent times, those who have been on the receiving end of such attacks have more or less agreed with their attackers on the basic doctrines of Christian theology, but they have been branded as dangerous heretics because they differed in their beliefs about minor matters, most of which were not even in the picture when Jude wrote about “our common salvation” (v. 3). Jude does assert strongly that the truth does matter, but it also powerfully argues that the life of fidelity to the faith involves more than assenting to correct belief. Obedience to the faith involves living in conformity to the example of Jesus Christ by “keeping ourselves in the love of God” (v. 21). Because the line

401

402

Jude 1-25

between faithfulness and infidelity is so thin, Jude calls readers to a life of self-scrutiny in regard to both belief and behavior.

Notes 1. The KJV has the reading “brother of James” (cf. Luke 6: 16). But this reading has no support from Greek manuscripts. In the New Testament era, when persons listed their genealogy, men identified themselves as the son of someone, not the brother of someone. See further, Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (rev. ed.; Downers Grove IL: Inter-Varsity, 1971) 927; and Ben Witherington, “Jude, Brother of Jesus,” BibRev 21/4 (2005): 15–16. 2. Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 25–26. 3. A few interpreters have attempted to link the statement to a prophecy found in the book of Enoch (1 En. 1:9). Enoch points to the future coming of the Lord and the accompanying condemnation of the ungodly. Most scholars, however, regard the connection to Enoch as hypothetical at best. 4. The Greek text has some variant readings, but translators seem to favor the reading “Lord,” over the variants of “Jesus,” “God,” and even “God Christ.” But does “Lord” refer to God or to the preexistent Christ? Support may be found in Scripture for both readings. For instance, Paul says the spiritual rock that accompanied the Israelites in the desert was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). Yet in the Old Testament we are told how God destroyed the unbelievers in the desert (Num 14:29-37; Heb 3:17-19). If the subject of v. 5 in Jude is uncertain, v. 6 definitely refers to God—not to Jesus but to God, who consigned fallen angels to dark prisons (cf. 2 Pet 2:4). Thus “Lord” in v. 5 likely refers to God. See the excellent discussion in Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco TX: Word Books, 1983) 49ff. 5. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50;Waco TX: Word Books, 1983) 112–13. On the “woe oracles,” see David E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 72–80. 6. C. E. B. Cranfield, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (TBC; London: SCM, 1960) 165. 7. Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992) 267–68. 8. Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter, and the General Epistle of Jude: An Introduction and Commentary (2d ed.; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 193–94. 9. Simon J. Kistemaker, Expositions of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 111. 10. See the excellent discussion of the doxology in Earl Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000) 300 passim.

Bibliography Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Waco TX: Word Books, 1983. Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. Cranfield, C. E. B. 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM, 1960. Elliott, John H. James, 1–2 Peter/Jude. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982. Garland, David E. The Intention of Matthew 23. Novum Testamentum Supplements 52. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Green, Michael. The Second Epistle General of Peter, and the General Epistle of Jude: An Introduction and Commentary. 2d ed. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1971. Hedrick, Charles W. “Gnosticism.” Pages 333–35 in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990. Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992. Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of ) Enoch.” Pages 5–89 in Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City NY: Doubleday & Company, 1983. Kee, Howard Clark. “Muratorian Canon.” Page 588 in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990. Kistemaker, Simon J. Expositions of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Kraftchick, Steven J. Jude, 2 Peter. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. Layton, Bentley, ed. The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City NY; Doubleday & Company, 1987. Luther, Martin. “Preface to Jude.” Page 398 in vol. 35 of Luther’s Works (55 vols.) Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia, 1963. Priest, J. “Testament of Moses.” Pages 919–34 in Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City NY; Doubleday & Company, 1983. Richard, Earl. Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Trafton, Joseph L. “Apocryphal Literature.” Pages 41–46 in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990. Wiles, John Keating. “Sodom/Gommorah/Cities of the Plain.” Pages 839–40 in Mercer

404

Bibliography Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990. Witherington III, Ben. “Jude, Brother of Jesus,” BRev 21/4 (2005): 15-16.

index of modern authors for 1 peter

A Adamson, Gil 190

G Garnsey, Peter 50 Green, Joel 177

B

Greenleaf, Robert K. 247

Beare, F. W. 209 Bell, Daniel M. Jr. 172

H

Bray, Gerald 238

Heinemann, Joseph 48

Bridges, Linda McKinnish 157

Helprin, Mark 50, 56, 69

Buechner, Frederick 201

Hopkins, Gerard Manley 239

C

J

Cao, Lan 98, 104

James, P. D. 43, 171

Crossan, J. D. 26

Jobes, Karen 4, 162, 246 Jones, Lloyd 72

D Desau, Hermann 148

K

Dickens, Charles 238

Keillor, Garrison 168, 235

Dillard, Annie 89, 118, 177

Kelly, J. N. D. 235

Donne, John 81–82, 211 Douglas, Lloyd 7, 48 Douglass, Frederick 133–34

L Lamb, Wally 33 Lewis, Naphtali 74

E

Luther, Martin 131, 219, 223

Eliot, George 104–105, 139, 145, 147 Elliott, J. K. 55, 99, 240, 246

M

Elliott, John H. 168

Malherbe, A. J. 68, 113, 149, 231

Enright, Anne 204

McCabe, Herbert 79, 102, 103, 108, 131, 167 McCarthy, Cormac 57, 101, 110

F Fanestil, John 161

McCullough, Colleen 156 Moulton, J. H. 64

Fielding, Henry 174 Forster, E. M. 180 Frost, Robert 87

N Naipaul, V. S. 98, 159

406

Index of Modern Authors for 1 Peter

Norris, Kathleen 207 Noy, David 36

O O’Connor, Flannery 104 Offley, G. W. 182

P Percy, Walker 52, 61–62, 102

R Reddish, Mitchell 16 Reicke, Bo 200 Reinhold, Meyer 74, 102, 103, 108 Rushdie, Salman 34

S Saller, Richard 50 Selwyn, E. G. 1–2 Shields, Carol 66, 87–88, 105, 157, 164 Stringfellow, William 246

T Trollope, Anthony 216

V Volf, Miroslav 132–33

W Waddell, Helen 235, 240 Warrior, Valerie 61, 98

index of modern authors for 2 PETER

B

M

Bauckham, Richard J. 265–67, 273–75, 290, 294, 298, 313, 322, 333, 334, 337, 355

McClendon, James Wm. Jr. 315

Bray, Gerald 262

Metzger, Bruce M. 265

Bultmann, Rudolph 293

Mills, Watson E. 271

C Cone, James 303 Craddock, Fred B. 262, 269, 319, 333, 336, 343, 355

D Davids, Peter H. 267–68, 295, 297, 321, 329, 339, 349, 354, 357

E

McLaren, Brian 305

N Neyrey, Jerome H. 265–67, 278–79, 312, 319, 321, 330, 333, 334, 351, 352, 357

P Perkins, Pheme 360

R Reicke, Bo 269–70, 273, 294

Elliott, John H. 270

G

W Watson, Duane 275–77, 328

Gardner, Erle Stanley 281

Whaley, Charles 329

Green, Michael 295, 333

Witherington, Ben III 261, 273, 278, 294, 320, 357

Gutiérrez, Gustavo 303

H Hillyer, Norman 298

K Käsemann, Ernst 295, 296 Kelly, J. N. D. 267–68, 294, 296, 355, 357 Kraftchick, Steven 269, 271, 277–78, 293, 295, 310, 317, 327, 338, 350

L Lapham, F. 265–67, 268–69, 270 Lapham, Fred 262, 348

index of modern authors FOR JUDE

H Hedrick, Charles W. 376

I Isaac, E. 390

K Kee, Howard Clark 376 Klauck, Hans-Josef 375

W Whisenant, Edgar 398 Wiles, John Keating 388

index of sidebars AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR 1 PETER

Text Sidebars

Cross as a Prayer of Faith, The 131

Hermas on the Vices

110

1 Clement’s Use of “Love Hides a Multitude of Sins” 204

Cynic on Emotion, A

Hierocles, On Duties

113

2 Clement’s Use of “Love Hides a Multitude of Sins” 205 2 Peter’s Claims to Authenticity 32 Abused for Being Christian

214

Angels and Powers

173

Approaching a Sanctuary

166

Aristotle on the Relationship between Household and State

68

Descent into Hell Elaborated, The 201

Holiness Honor Everybody

118

Destiny and Free Will

Honor the Emperor

118

Honoring Rulers

117

Hope

167

Devout Reason Conquers Emotion

42 67

Didache and Limits on Hospitality

206

Donne on Affliction

211

Don’t Be Surprised by Testing 209 119

Draw Near to God

241

Augustine on Preaching to the Dead 199

Duties to Ancestors

98

Babylon

246

Being Alien

104

Early Christian Opinions on Christian Relations to Government

116

Hope

69

66

Hopkins on Patience

239

Humility

238

Hypocrisy

89

I Am Getting Along

177

I am the Paterfamilias

156

Identity

102

If It’s This Hard for the Righteous

219

Ignatius on the Prophets

60

I’m Simon Peter

33

162

Early Christian Use of Crown Images

Blessings and Suffering

215

Emigrant

Caring for a Wife

157

End is Near, the

203

Imperial Priesthoods

102

Cast All Your Cares on God

239

Enduring Pain

190

Influential Freedman, An

108

Celsus on Christians

215

Eusebius on Mark and Peter

Celsus on the Failure of the Apostles

229

Blessed Be God Blessing an Adversary

Chosen

48

101

Christians and Sacrifices

97

Christians as a New Race

101

Christians as Temple

94

Christ’s Descent into Hades among Early Believers

200

Christ’s Exemplary Death

172

Cicero on Crucifixion Clement of Alexandria on Preaching to the Dead

77 198

235 72

2

Is Not This the Land of Beulah? 234

Exile

34

It Ain’t My Country

Father’s Rights, A

50

Joy

110 57 99

Foreknowledge

41

Judgment Scenes in Apocalypse of Peter

Gird Up

65

Justin, Apology 1.67

66

Leave Me Alone!

207

Love Is the End

203

Fear as a Motivator for Slaves 123

Grace and Holiness Greek, Roman, and Jewish Writers on Women’s Extravagance

149

Hatred of the Name of “Christian”

213

Malice

Head of Household Offers Sacrifice, A

141

Meekness and Quiet for Women

Love One Another Love LXX

58

79 118 2 89 151

412

Index of Sidebars and Illustrations for 1 Peter

Mercy

50

Silence

147

Cornerstone (Marble)

Milk

89

Slanders against Christians

111

Milk (2)

90

Slanders

168

Crucifixion of Saint Peter, Caravaggio

127

Denial of Saint Peter, The, Caravaggio

214

Guests at a Wine Party

192

Minucius Felix on Suffering Now, Suffering Then

Slave’s Life, A

125

169

Stoic Advice on the Desires

191

Most People Are OK

164

Suffering for the Cross

171

Suffering to Prevent Sin

189 161

Mysteries, The

143

No Depth to which He Will Not Sink

201

Sympathy and Mutual Affection

No Logic to Love

204

Taste that the Lord Is Good

91

52

Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women

148

Testimony of a Lar, The

141 194

No Need for Future Hope? On Digressing

174

On Treating Women with Care

156

They Are Surprised

Parade Honoring Isis, A

144

Patience in Suffering

126

Those Who Endured Are Praised/Praise God

Peter Prays Polycarp Refuses to Give an Account

48 167

Trimalchio the Vulgar Freedman Variations in Early Christian Greetings

55 114 44

Praying to God with an Undivided Heart

203

Vessel

157

Priesthoods and Associations

103

Pseudonymity

245

Virtue Matters more than Adornment

148

Purified by Fire

56

Warden, The

216

126

When Humility Is Not a Virtue

162

Redemption of Slaves

74

Where Are You Going?

210

Rejoicing in Suffering

212

Wifely Courage

153

Wifely Submission

145

Rag Dealers Honor Their Patron, The

Resident Alien in 1 Clement

37

Resist Lions

240

Rule of St. Benedict on Hospitality, The

206

Ruling Scars Prove the Slave Selection of Early Christian vice Lists, A Self-controlled Seneca on Abuse of Slaves Seneca on Crucifixion Set Apart for God

236

Marital Concord (Marble relief ) Mother Nursing Her Child (Terracotta statuette) Noah and the Ark

39 158 90 178

Panel from Third-century Christian Sarcophagus

205

Peter and Paul

244

Peter Dictating to St. Mark Peter’s Denial Sacrificial Scene

4 165 96

Saint Peter Consecrating Saint Asprenus as First Bishop of Naples, Morelli

232

Seeking Whom He May Devour

240

Shrine of Lares

142

Silver Denarius

195

St. Peter Opens Paradise

53

St. Peter Receiving the Keys from Christ

92 170

121

Illustrations

Temptations of a Banquet

193

Actor in a Slave Mask (terracotta statuette)

Good Shepherd, The

234

191 65

Arrest of Peter

74

Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way, Carracci

131 43 233 231

Sibylline Oracles

235

Youths

Map of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia

75 150

233

Shepherd Images among Philosophers

Shepherd’s Authority, The

Youths Need Humility

Livia Praying

Tears of Saint Peter, The, El Greco (Canvas)

Sheep and Shepherds

Shepherd of Hermas on Godly Passion

You Won’t Accompany Them 193

Liberty Coin from AD 69

98

228 61

33

210

Christ Liberating Adam and Eve and All of the Righteous from Limbo, De Predis 196 Christ Militant

68

130

Christ with Prophets (Mosaic)

241 60

Comic Actors in Slave Masks and Costumes (Terracotta statuettes) 122

Transfiguration, Angelico

70

Triumph of Septimius Severus 115

index of sidebars AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR 2 PETER

Text Sidebars

Six Teachings of Epicurus

331

Abridged Rhetorical Outline

277

Sk∑noma

311

Apollymi and Apøleia

330

Stoicheia

356

Aselgeia

330

Thymos

350

Balaam and His Oracles

340

Bebaios

319

Illustrations

Chiasm

313

Ancient of Days, The, Blake

353

Aret∑

299

Balaam’s Talking Ass

341

Baptism of Christ Cultural Icons

Saint Michael Defeating Satan, Guenther (limewood sculpture) 328 Oil Lamp

320

Papyrus 72, the Bodmer VII Papyrus

273

Pew Results

359

Pigsty, A (green terracotta)

341

Rebellious Slave, The, Michelangelo

322

318

Sacra Ruota, The, Angelico

349

323

Denial of St. Peter, de La Tour 312

Saint Augustine altar, van Scorel

292

Dividing of the Waters (Mosaic) 352

Saint Paul Writing, Backer

357

Elijah on Mount Carmel

332

317

Epicurus (bust)

279

289

Hairesis

329

Farewell of the Apostles, Duccio 310

Saint Peter the Apostle with two keys in his hands, Rubens

Harrelson on “Testaments”

274

God Locks the Ark

334

Saint Peter the Martyr Writing, Bartolommeo 348

H∑don∑ (“pleasure”)

339

Heraclitus and the Stoics

355

Gutiérrez and Cone: Two Theologians of Praxis

303

Saints Peter and Paul, da Candia

272

Inclusio

313

Head of an Apostle, Rubens

294

Isotimon

291

Heraclitus (c. 540-C. 480 BC)

354

Satan in his Original Glory: “Thou wast Perfect till Iniquity was found in Thee,” Blake

337

Sermon on the Mount, von Carolsfeld

332

Transfiguration, The, Raphael

316

Development of the Trinity in the Early Church

292

Epichor∑gein

298

Epignøsis

293

Eusebius’s Lists

263

Excerpt of Epicurus’s Letter to Herodotus 315 Gospel Parallels of Transfiguration

James Wm. McClendon, Jr., on “Myth” in Christian Theology

315

Jude and 2 Peter Parallels

271

Muratorian Fragment

265

Mythos (“myth”)

314

Parousia

316

Postmodernism

304

Pseudo-Petrine Texts

262

Rhetorical Criticism

276

Six More Teachings of Epicurus

351

Les Heures d’Etienne Chavalier: The Martyrdom of Saint Peter, Fouquet 275 Lot and his Daughters Leaving Sodom, Reni 335 Mankind Drowns in the Flood, while the rain keeps pouring down 352 Map of Rome, Asian Minor, and Egypt

268

Master of the Rebel Angels (oil on wood)

333

index of sidebars AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR Jude

Text Sidebars

Illustrations

Assumption of Moses, The

370

Beloved

382

Delivered

384

Falling

396

Gnosticism

376

Jude and 2 Peter

377

Letter Form in the New Testament

Disciples Plucking Corn on the Sabbath, The, Doré 400 Fall of the Rebel Angels, The, Doré

387

Jude (woodcut)

379

Nag Hammadi Library, The

377

Prophet Enoch, The

391

390 370

375

Martin Luther on the Relationship of Jude and 2 Peter

Punishment of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, The, Beccafumi

378

Muratorian Canon, The

376

Testament and Death of Moses, Signorelli

Pseudepigrapha

370

Sodom and Gomorrah

388

What Is a “Blessing” in the biblical Tradition?

378

index of topics for 1 Peter

1 Clement 1, 12–14, 37, 44, 116, 145, 204, 230, 236–38 2 Clement 41, 204–205

A Acts of Peter 26, 189, 210, 245 Alien(s) 23, 29, 34, 33–37, 40, 42, 79, 81, 83–84, 98, 104–105, 107–109, 114, 132, 144, 151, 159, 203, 246

20, 23, 25, 27–28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 53, 57, 79, 82, 87, 97, 110, 114, 124, 134, 136–137, 145–147, 158, 161, 169, 181, 190, 199–200, 204, 206, 208, 216, 220–222, 227–28, 230, 232, 235–38, 240, 243–47

Apocalypse of Peter 25–26, 99, 168

Community(-ies) 10, 17, 23, 32, 34, 78, 81, 87, 89, 94, 96, 108, 125, 133, 136, 154, 155, 157, 162, 168, 181, 204, 206, 222, 241–42, 245–46, 248

Asia 2, 5–6, 9, 16, 31, 33, 36, 38–40, 75, 83, 96, 124, 194, 212, 230, 245

Date 13–14, 90, 194,

Audience 3, 5–6, 8, 10–13, 32–33, 37–40, 49, 55, 61, 64, 73, 75, 81–83, 90–91, 93–98, 100–103, 105, 107, 114, 117, 119, 123–24, 128, 130–31, 139–40, 148, 150, 152, 157–58, 160–61, 165–66, 173, 183, 199, 209, 213–14, 217–18, 221, 231, 236 Authorship 1–2, 4, 6, 13, 27, 245

B Baptism 104, 106, 152, 160, 171–72, 174, 177–79, 185, 194, 200, 233 Baptize 245 Barnabas 1, 3, 9, 24, 27, 59, 89, 191, 230, 243, 245 Bithynia 2, 5, 17, 19, 31, 33, 38–39, 75, 96, 159

C Cappadocia 2, 5, 31, 33, 38–40, 75, 96 Church(es) 2, 5–6, 9–10, 12, 16,

D Descent into hell 201 Diaspora 31, 33, 37, 40, 80 Didache 3, 24–25, 122–123, 162, 191, 206, 229, 233

E Elder(s) 2, 8, 20, 29, 103, 132, 204, 208, 218–219, 227, 229–38, 244, 248–49 Emperor 15, 17, 19, 50, 75, 96–97, 102, 108, 112, 114–115, 117–18, 122, 126, 133, 139, 141, 150, 168, 192, 194–95, 209, 221, 248 Empire 31, 50, 74, 114, 142–143, 148, 150, 190, 195, 207, 211, 245–46, 248 Eusebius 1–2, 9, 12, 14, 25–28, 168

F Father 31–33, 41, 44–45, 47–50, 63–64, 70, 72, 76–77, 80–81, 84, 89, 94, 114, 119, 131, 141,

151–152, 156, 173, 199, 201, 203, 214, 216, 230, 240

G Galatia 2, 5, 31–33, 38–39, 75, 96 Gentile(s) 2–4, 5, 6, 13, 22, 24, 36–38, 41, 51, 70, 80, 83, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111, 131, 133, 144, 148, 152, 173, 163, 188, 190, 192, 195–96, 198, 202–203, 221, 224, 243, 246 God 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21–23, 25, 29, 31–34, 37–38, 41–57, 59–61, 63–73, 75–82, 84, 87–107, 109–118, 120, 122–23, 125–34, 139, 141–42, 144–45, 147, 150, 152, 154, 156–58, 160, 162–82, 184, 187–89, 191, 194–212, 214–24, 227–28, 230–47 Gods 17, 19–20, 23–24, 36, 42, 60, 70–71, 82, 97–98, 101, 109, 113, 118, 130, 140–43, 154, 187, 192–93, 195, 203, 207, 209, 214, 221 Gospel of Peter 26, 198, 200

H Hades 69, 185, 197–198, 200–201, 221 Hell 25, 99, 133, 196, 199, 201 Holiness 2, 22, 29, 31, 42, 61, 66, 68–71, 105, 145, 157, 167, 179, 246 Holy 2, 11, 22, 32, 42–43, 46–48, 57, 61–63, 65–66, 68–69, 73, 78, 87–88, 90–91, 94–97, 100, 103, 105–107, 109, 118, 140, 143, 145–146, 166–67, 175,

418

Index of Topics for 1 Peter

178, 188, 200, 218–19, 228, 245–46 Holy Spirit 42, 46–47, 57, 94, 245 Hope 29, 45–50, 52, 61, 63–66, 70, 73, 77–78, 80, 84–85, 90, 93, 104–105, 145, 158, 164, 167–169, 177, 179, 183, 194, 197, 200, 207, 212, 222, 224 Household codes 158 Household(s) 21, 23, 49–52, 74, 94, 98, 106, 113, 118–122, 124, 136, 139–42, 145, 149, 155–59, 180–181, 199, 206–207, 219 Husband(s) 11, 29, 50, 68, 81–82, 94, 106–107, 112, 113, 119, 126, 139–40, 142, 144–47, 151–55, 158–60, 164, 167, 170, 176, 180, 220, 245

I Idols 3, 13, 24–25, 192, 201 Ignatius 3, 11–13, 19, 60, 120, 124, 162, 169, 198–200, 230–31, 233, 236

J Jesus 2–3, 8–12, 16, 20, 23, 25–26, 31–33, 37–39, 41, 43–50, 52–56, 58–60, 63–66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 77, 80, 84, 90–95, 97, 99–101, 105, 112, 116, 123, 127–29, 131, 133–34, 137, 147, 150–52, 154, 162–63, 165–69, 171–74, 176, 182, 187–89, 191, 196–97, 199–203, 206, 211, 213, 215, 219–20, 224–25, 228–31, 233, 237, 239–42, 244–45, 248 Jew(s) 2, 35, 37–38, 49, 59, 69, 75, 80, 93, 95, 101–104, 108, 136, 142, 190–191, 198, 200, 214, 245 Jewish 2–3, 11, 23–24, 37–38, 48–49, 51, 67, 83, 95, 101, 108, 136, 147–149, 151–152, 175–176, 190–192, 204, 207, 210, 217, 245–246 Justin Martyr 1, 59, 198, 201

L Lamb 33, 42, 70, 76–77, 133, 240

Love 29, 44–45, 47, 54–56, 61–64, 67–68, 77–79, 82, 84, 87, 91, 110, 112, 117–18, 133, 139, 145, 148–49, 158–63, 185, 201, 203–205, 207, 221–22, 228, 233, 241, 243, 245–47

M Mark 2, 4–6, 9–11, 16, 23, 37, 50, 56, 69, 90, 100, 128, 137, 141, 147, 186, 191, 202, 211, 219, 223, 229, 238–39, 241, 243–44, 246 Martyr(s) 1, 7, 9, 11–13, 16, 20, 28, 40, 53, 55, 59, 67, 127, 144, 147, 198, 201, 212, 217–18, 228–29, 235 Martyrdom 10–12, 26, 44, 117, 167, 173, 214, 241

O Obedience 2, 31, 33, 41–44, 77–78, 145–46, 148, 152, 154, 172–73, 179, 219, 240–41 Obedient 40, 43, 63, 66, 78, 81, 89, 105, 116, 118, 120, 123, 127, 154

P Papias 2, 9 Paterfamilias 84, 155–56, 180–81 Pliny 15, 17–19, 28, 97, 159, 195, 214, 224 Plutarch 140, 142–43, 146, 149, 151, 155–56, 183 Pontus 2, 5, 31, 33, 38–39, 42, 75, 96 Pray 11, 32, 37, 48–49, 63, 82, 118, 131, 141, 144, 161–62, 202–203, 209, 222, 239, Prayer 34, 37, 46, 48–49, 76, 78, 84, 97, 106, 118, 131–32, 141, 152, 166, 182, 185, 205, 211, 239 Priest(s) 10, 49, 67, 95–96, 102, 108, 111, 131–32, 140, 142–143, 216, 218, 248 Priesthood 2, 23, 42, 88, 91, 94–97, 100, 102–104, 106, 131–32, 136 Pseudonymous 3, 5–6, 9, 245

R Resident Alien(s) 23, 33–35, 37, 40, 42, 79, 81, 105, 107–109, 114, 151, 159, 203

S Sacrifice(s) 11, 20, 23, 44, 69, 76–77, 82, 88, 91, 95–97, 102–103, 131–133, 140–42, 173, 214, 221 Salvation 41, 45–48, 52–54, 56–58, 60, 68, 72, 79, 82, 84, 88–91, 105, 134, 167, 183, 189–190, 196, 198, 200, 211, 221, 224, 246 Sanctification 31, 33, 41–42, 44, 69, 95, 136, 157, 166 Sanctify 22, 43, 69, 92, 163, 166 Save(d) 1, 57, 73, 95, 116, 118, 146, 153, 156, 171–72, 174, 177–78, 190, 199, 202, 214–15, 217, 223, 241, 247 Secretary 3–4, 249 Shrines 23, 87, 96, 98, 108, 140–41 Silvanus 4, 6, 9, 32, 242–243, 249 Slave(s) 1, 12, 19, 21–22, 29, 31, 36, 40, 40, 48, 49–50, 65, 68, 73–74, 76, 79, 87, 94, 96, 102–103, 106–107, 110, 112–15, 114, 117–28, 130–31, 133–34, 137, 139, 139, 144–46, 149, 150–53, 155, 157–58, 160, 164, 170, 173, 176, 182, 187, 192–93, 205–206, 216, 220, 228, 235 Slavery 50, 52, 72–75, 77, 120–21, 123, 125, 128, 134, 137, 180, 246 Sojourner(s) 23, 29, 31, 33, 36–37, 62, 76, 79–80, 82, 87, 105, 107, 109, 114, 152, 159 Spirit 1, 31–33, 39, 41–42, 46–47, 56–61, 77, 90, 94–95, 97, 110, 116, 131, 142, 147, 150, 153, 156, 167, 171–72, 174–76, 178, 181, 185, 188, 195, 197, 199–201, 206, 212, 214–15, 221, 233, 238–39, 245 Submission 68, 145, 147, 152, 180–81, 247

Index of Topics for 1 Peter Submit 114, 126, 133, 136, 180 Subordinate 112, 114–15, 120, 122–26, 128, 133, 139–40, 144–46, 154–55 Subordination 123, 126, 145–46, 155 Suffer 1, 12, 14, 16, 20–22, 54–55, 58, 77, 82, 100, 119, 124, 127, 134, 144, 153, 163–65, 168–71, 180–82, 189, 194–95, 209–210, 212–13, 215–17, 219, 222–23, 232, 241, 248 Suffered 11–12, 15–16, 21, 111, 124, 127–30, 159, 171–73, 185, 188–89, 195, 201, 209, 213, 237, 242 Suffering 13–16, 20–23, 25, 29, 45–47, 50, 52–54, 56, 64, 99, 106, 120, 125–28, 130–31, 134, 160, 162, 165, 168–74, 179, 187–89, 198, 208–209, 211–15, 217, 219–20, 222–24, 236, 242, 244–45, 248 Suffering servant 128, 134

T Tacitus 15, 183, 195, 209, 224 Temple(s) 18, 20, 23, 25, 48, 52, 59, 69, 71, 79, 87, 94–98, 103, 108, 115, 121, 126, 135, 140, 142–144, 166, 172, 193, 218, 233, 239 Tertullian 1, 6, 12, 118, 143, 148, 154, 168, 194, 197–198, 213, 245–246 Trajan 17, 19, 83, 97, 214, 224

V Vice list 24, 89, 190, 221 Virtue list 161

W Wife(ves) 11, 29, 49, 79, 82, 94, 105, 106–107, 112, 113–14, 119–20, 126, 136, 139–42, 145–58, 160, 164, 167, 170, 173, 175, 177, 180–81, 205, 220 Worship 13, 16, 19, 23, 58–59, 70, 96–98, 101, 103, 111, 116,

118, 142–43, 154, 187, 192, 201, 205, 214, 228, 239

419

index of topics for 2 Peter

1 Enoch 263, 327, 333, 344

A Abraham 274, 280, 335 Angels 26, 45–47, 54–55, 57–58, 61, 116, 171, 173, 175–177, 182–83, 246, 264–65, 287, 327, 333, 336–37, 344, 353 Antioch 269, 272 Apocalypse 262–69, 283–84 Apocalypse of Peter 262–69, 283–84

Authorship 261–63, 265, 269, 281, 283–84, 305

313–16, 329, 331, 339, 342, 360

Baal 332–33

Christianity 259–60, 264, 271, 279, 295, 303, 305, 307–308, 316, 325, 344

Babylon 267

Christological 266

Balaam 326–7, 337, 339–42, 345

Church 260, 262–65, 267, 269–70, 272–73, 280, 284, 289–90, 292–93, 301, 303, 307, 316, 318, 323–5, 327, 330–31, 339, 342–43, 348, 356–60

B

Baptism 274, 283, 315, 318 Barnabas 263, 271–72, 285, 289 Basil the Great 292 Beloved 262, 268, 270, 272, 290, 297, 311, 314, 317, 347, 356, 358, 360

Cicero 276, 285, 320, 326

Apocalyptic 263, 274–75, 319, 325, 327 Apology 281, 301, 309, 336

Benediction 305, 358

Apostasy 277–78, 302, 323, 330, 339, 341

Bible 260, 274, 276, 280–81, 284, 315, 332, 334, 341, 344, 361

Apostle 261, 263, 289–90, 294, 323, 357

Body 280, 293, 311, 327, 331, 337, 343, 351, 355

Coming 270, 274, 276–77, 297, 302, 313–16, 318–20, 324, 326, 328–29, 335, 349–50, 353–56, 359

Apostles’ Creed 358–59 Apostolic 261, 263, 267, 270, 284–85, 290, 299, 303, 314–15, 318, 321, 324, 329, 331, 337, 339, 342, 347–48, 357, 359–60

C Caesarea 269 Cain 327

Circumcision 271 CNN 281

Conversional knowledge 289, 295, 299, 301, 304, 310, 341, 355 Corruption 287, 296, 300, 306, 334, 336, 340–41, 344 Cosmic conflagration 354, 356, 360

Apostolic teaching 261, 299, 315, 324, 329, 331, 337, 339, 342, 360

Canon 261–65, 267, 272, 282–85, 318, 326, 358

Asia Minor 267–68, 270, 273, 284, 291

Chain of virtues 297–99, 301, 304, 307, 350, 355, 357

Asiatic Greek 294

Character formation 303

Atheism 286

Charlatan 340

Atheists 279, 286

Chiasm 313, 322, 328

David 280, 329

Attic 284

Christ 260–63, 266–67, 70, 274, 276–77, 280, 282, 289–303, 305, 310–16, 318, 322, 324, 329, 334, 341, 347, 349, 355, 358–59, 362

Day of God 316, 319–20, 326, 355–56

Christian 261, 274–77, 280, 283, 285, 293, 295, 297–307, 309,

Death 261–62, 274, 278, 280, 294, 309, 311–12, 315, 325,

Augustine 276, 292 Authority 267, 273, 277, 282–83, 290, 292, 303, 318, 326, 336, 357 Authority of Scripture 282, 318

Cephas 272, 290, 305

Cosmos 291, 334, 354 Creation 276, 278, 320, 334–35, 350–51, 361 Creator 269, 277, 334

D

Day of judgment 319–20, 327, 334, 336, 353, 355 Day of the Lord 296, 319–20

422

Index of Topics for 2 Peter

331, 344, 349–51, 355, 361 Defense 261, 265, 272, 276, 282, 287, 290, 295, 309, 313–14, 316, 318, 322, 336, 348, 350, 353 Desire 301, 350, 386 Devil 327, 337, 343 Divine nature 294–96, 302, 306–307, 354, 357

318, 322–23, 328–33, 336–44, 348–51, 356, 361 Farewell sermon 294, 297, 302 Flood 334–35, 338, 352 FOX News 281 Freedom 278, 286, 299–300, 304, 322, 340, 342, 351, 357

Hope 260, 262, 270, 277, 281, 293–94, 300, 305, 309–310, 318, 356

I Icon 272, 281, 290 Immorality 337, 350 Inclusio 293, 313, 322, 328, 344

G

Israel 280, 292, 320, 340

Doctrine 272, 275, 279, 285, 290–92, 303, 305, 315, 324–25, 329, 331, 361

Gehenna 333

Dualism 295–96

Glorious ones 337

Jacob 274, 320, 340, 357

Glory 266, 274, 283, 295, 314, 316–18, 321, 337, 358

James 263, 272, 276, 283–85, 289, 303, 306–307, 314–15, 317, 325, 362

E Earth 291, 296, 317, 320, 351–56, 360, 362

Gentiles 270–72, 348

Gnosticism 278

J

God 264–66, 274, 277, 279–80, 286, 291–302, 304–305, 311–12, 314–17, 319–22, 324, 326–29, 332–34, 336, 338, 340–41, 344, 347, 350–56, 359

Jeremiah 280

Godliness 274, 291, 295, 297, 300, 306, 320, 355

Jerusalem Council 271–72, 289–90

Endurance 263, 300

Gomorrah 287, 327, 330, 335–36, 345, 353

Epicureanism 330, 351, 361

Goodness 274, 295, 299, 306

Epicurus 278–79, 286, 314–15, 330–31, 351

Grace 291–93, 296, 298, 302–303, 305–306, 348, 356, 358

Jesus 261, 266–67, 271, 274, 276–77, 280–83, 289–95, 297–99, 301–302, 305, 307, 310–319, 321, 323–24, 326, 329, 331, 334, 341, 347, 349–51, 354, 356, 358, 360–61

Ecclesiastical History 263, 283 Egypt 267–69, 284 Elements 292, 295, 313, 320, 329, 351, 354, 356, 360 Elijah 314, 317, 332–33 Encyclical 273, 285

Eschatology 306, 313, 320, 36 Ethics 272, 290, 324, 331, 342, 355

Greed 277, 330, 339–40, 342

Exodus 312, 327

Greek 261, 268, 270, 278–80, 291–92, 294–95, 299–301, 310, 313–14, 333–34, 343, 349–50, 354–55, 360

Exploitation 277, 330

Gregory of Nyssa 292

Eusebius 263, 267, 283

Eyewitness 283, 313–14, 316, 318–19, 321, 324, 326, 329

F Faith 260, 278, 280, 282, 290–94, 297–305, 307–308, 311–12, 316, 347, 358 Faithful living 273–74, 296, 303, 312 Faithfulness 270, 273, 287, 294, 302 False prophets 310, 313–14, 318, 322, 328, 332–33, 349, 357 False teachers 263, 270, 276–78, 287, 304, 306, 310–11, 313,

H Heavens 274, 291, 296, 320, 351–55, 360 Hell 264, 327 Hellenism 316, 329 Heraclitus 354–55, 362 Heresy 277–78, 281, 329–30 Heretic 264 Holy mountain 267, 276, 314–15, 317, 319 Holy Spirit 271, 291–92, 305, 322, 328 Homer 350

Jerome 267, 269, 276, 283, 286, 306, 325, 344, 361–62 Jerusalem 271–72, 289–90, 292, 317, 344

Jewish 273–74, 279, 289–90, 292, 295, 314, 333–34, 337, 345, 352, 360 John 263–64, 272, 283–84, 307, 309, 312, 314, 317, 323–24, 326, 344, 362 Judah 280 Judaism 264, 295, 309, 334 Jude 260–61, 263–65, 269, 271, 276–77, 283–85, 298, 305–307, 325–28, 333, 337, 343–45, 361–62 Judge 277, 291, 297, 316, 324, 326, 332, 334, 359 Judgment 265, 270, 275–79, 285–87, 290, 292, 296–97, 314, 319–20, 322, 326–29, 332–36, 338, 340, 342, 347–49, 353–55, 357, 359–60

K Kingdom 302, 312, 331, 334

Index of Topics for 2 Peter Knowledge 274, 277, 289, 292–95, 299, 301–302, 304, 306, 310, 333, 341, 355–58 Korah 327

L Lactanitus 278–79 Licentious 300, 323, 330, 340, 344, 350 Lifestyle 324–25, 330–31 Lot 280, 291, 297, 324, 327, 333–36, 344–45 Lucifer 320 Lust 296, 330, 336, 342, 350

M Majesty 266–67, 274, 276, 314, 316–18, 321 Marcion 264, 318

O Old Testament 264, 276, 313, 317, 319, 324–25, 340, 350, 361 Opponents 163, 181, 275–79, 281–82, 287, 291, 295–97, 299–302, 305–307, 309, 313–15, 318–21, 325, 329–30, 332, 336, 338, 340, 343–44, 350–51, 353, 356, 361 Origen 267 Orthodoxy 263–64, 281, 303, 307

P Parousia 265–66, 270, 275–77, 285, 287, 302, 309, 312–14, 316, 318–21, 324–25, 329, 334, 336, 338, 342, 347–51, 353–55, 359–61

322, 326, 328, 332–33, 340, 348–50, 357, 361 Proverbs 341 Providence 278 Providential 286, 300 Pseudepigraphon 261, 267–68, 271, 305, 312 Pseudonymity 261–63, 268

R Redeemer 334 Resurrection 280 Retribution 278, 286 Rhetoric 270, 275–76, 285, 294, 319, 336, 338, 343 Righteousness 264–65, 291, 294, 296–97, 302, 320, 334, 341–42, 354–55, 362 Rome 263, 267–68, 271, 273, 279, 284–85, 294, 354

Messiah 271

Pastoral 272–73, 275, 285, 293, 305, 311, 347, 351, 353, 355

Messianic 266, 315–18, 326, 340

Pastoral Epistles 273

Metaphor 299, 311, 313, 354

Patience 353, 356

Michael 283, 306, 327–28, 337, 343–44, 361, 363

Paul 262–63, 268, 271–72, 276, 285, 289–91, 293–94, 297, 299, 305, 311, 316, 322–24, 330, 347–48, 354, 356–57, 360, 362

Salvation 291, 302, 356

Morning star 319–20, 340 Moses 263, 274, 280, 314, 317, 327, 337, 343, 362

S Scoffers 277, 350–51 Scripture 276–77, 282–83, 318–19, 321, 328–29, 357

Peace 292–93, 339, 356

Second coming 359

MSNBC 281

Pentecost 271

Self–control 299, 350

Mt. Carmel 332–33

Perry Mason 281

Servant 261, 289–90

Muratorian Canon 263, 265, 284

Petrine 262, 264–67, 269–71, 273, 283–84, 305, 312, 315, 348, 357, 361

Simeon Peter 261, 289–90

Muratorian Fragment 263–65 Mutual affection 300 Myth 262, 283–84, 314–15, 319, 327, 360–61

Philo 352, 362 Piety 300 Pius I 263

N

Plutarch 278–79

New earth 291, 296, 320, 355

Polemic 286, 301, 309, 336, 361

New heavens 291, 296, 320, 355

Postapostolic 290, 298

New Testament 259, 261, 263–65, 267, 271, 273–74, 276, 278, 280, 282–85, 289–93, 295, 298–99, 302, 305–306, 309, 311, 313–19, 324, 326, 334, 344, 350, 353–54, 357–58, 361

Postmodern 304–305, 308, 344

Noah 287, 291, 327, 333–36, 338, 344

Postmodernism 304 Praxis 303

423

Sin 296–97, 301, 339, 344–45 Slander 337–38 Slave 322 Sodom 287, 327, 330, 335–36, 344–45, 353 Stoicism 355 Stoics 350, 354–55 Suffering 270, 338 Superstar 324 Synoptic Gospels 266, 275, 283, 314–15, 317, 319

Prayer 292–93 Promise(s) 261, 274, 276, 281, 287, 294, 295–96, 300, 302, 311–12, 320, 329, 340, 350,353–56, 361 Prophet(s) 270, 274, 277, 280, 290, 310, 313–14, 318, 321,

T Tartarus 333 Tent 311–12 Tertullian 292 Testament 259, 261, 263–65, 267,

424

Index of Topics for 2 Peter

271, 273–76, 278, 280, 282–85, 287, 289–93, 295, 298–99, 302, 305–306, 309–319, 324–27, 334, 340, 344, 349–50, 353–54, 357–58, 361 Testament of Moses 263, 327, 370, 403 Theology 259, 266, 270, 282, 291, 303, 306, 314–15, 331, 342 Thief 320, 354 Timothy 273, 322 Titus 272–73 Tradition 262, 266–67, 283, 289, 311–12, 318, 321, 325, 334, 345, 361 Transfiguration 265–66, 274, 283, 285–86, 313–19, 321–22, 324–26, 329, 347 Trial 281, 327, 334–36, 353–54 Trinitarian 291–92, 326 Trinity 291–92, 305

U Unrighteousness 291

V Values 301 Venus 320 Virtue 299–300

W Way of truth 323, 331, 343, 348

index of topics for Jude

2 Peter 369, 377–78, 387, 398, 402

A Adam 390 Angels 373, 375, 378, 387–89, 402 Antidote 370, 375–76, 390, 392

Delivered 369, 384–85, 394, 401

Kept 381–82, 400

Doxology 395–96, 402

Korah 373, 389–90

E

Legalism 394, 398–401

Enoch 369–70, 373, 387, 390–91, 402

Letter form 375

F

Assumption of Moses 369–70

Faith 369–70, 376, 378, 382–86, 389, 391, 393–97, 401

Authority 378, 380–81, 383, 389, 391, 397

Falling 395–96

B

False teachers 373, 376, 378, 381, 383, 386, 389, 391–98 Fidelity 371, 401

G

Belief 371, 376, 401–402

General epistle 375–76, 402

Beloved 382–83, 392–94

Gnostic 375, 377

Blessing 378, 383

Gnosticism 278, 375–76

Book of Enoch 369–70, 390–91, 402 Brother 379–81, 402, 404

C

Carpocratian heresy 375 Catholic epistles 369, 376 Condemnation 385, 391, 402

D Date–setting 398–99 Defile 389

Martin Luther 378 Metaphor(s) 378, 388 Michael 370, 373, 402 Muratorian Canon 375–76

N Nephilim 387

O Obedience 371, 400–401 Orthodoxy 371, 376, 401

H Heresy 371, 375, 383–84, 396

P

Holy 382, 392–94, 400

Parousia 387, 397–99

Hope 384, 393, 395, 401

Patience 389

Cain 373, 389 Called 376, 378–79, 381–82, 385, 388, 390, 401

M

Nag Hammadi 376–77

Balaam 373, 378, 389 Baruch 387

L

Egypt 375, 377, 386

Apocryphal writings 378 Apostles 373, 378, 384–85, 391–94

K

Devil 373

Practice 371, 390, 398

I Immorality 383, 387, 389 Israel 386–87 Israelites 386, 389, 391, 402

Prophetic examples 385–86 Pseudepigrapha 369–70, 390

R Relationship to 2 Peter 377

J Jubilees 387 Judaism 376 Judgment 373, 378, 383, 386–91

426

Index of Topics for Jude

S Saints 369, 383–85, 394, 396, 401 Salvation 376, 383, 385, 391–92, 397, 401 Satan 370, 381, 394 Scripture 370, 384–85, 390, 402 Self–delusion 371 Self–scrutiny 371, 402 Servant 379–80, 382 Sinners 373, 381–82, 386, 390 Sodom and Gomorrah 373, 378, 387–88

T Tradition 378, 384, 390–92 Truth 371, 384, 389, 401

U Ungodly 383, 386, 391, 393, 402

W Whisenant 398

index of scriptures

Old Testament

13:11-16

76

DEUTERONOMY

21

241

16:2, 9

391

5:10; 7:9

49

21:14

241

GENESIS 1:6-8

19:5

103

6:2, 13

71

22

241

352

19:6

95, 103

7:7-8

33

32:12 (33:12) 51

5:18

390

19:24

95

18:22

321

33

164

5:21-24

245

23:22

95, 103

23:4-5

340

33:5 (34:4)

36

5:22, 24

391

24

44

33

274

33(34):8

91

5:24

390

24:8

44

6–9

352

34:19-20

76

JOSHUA

6

175, 387

34:20

76

13:22

6:1-4

175, 333

24:9-10

7:7

177

LEVITICUS

13:5-11

388

11

69

1 KINGS

13:12

388

11:44-45

69

5:21

14:20

48

19:2

69

18

15:7

51

19:3

69

16:2

151

19:9-10

69

NEHEMIAH

18–19

335

19:14

71

13:2

18

388

20:7, 26

69

18:12

151

25:48-49

76

33(34):12-16 163 33:15-16

163

340

33:17, 19

73

340

33:18

73

33:19

73

33:21

73

48

33:22

73

332

34

73

34:13-14

163

38 (39)

37

340

ESTHER

38:13

109

4:17

49(50):14, 23

96

152

335

27

76

19:4-5

388

27:2-3

76

19:8

388

19:24-25

388

NUMBERS

21:11-12

151

14:29-37

386

21:12

181

22:23-30

340

PSALMS

23:4-6

34

22–24

340

1:1

392

23:4

36, 109

317, 319

274

23:7-10, 18-24

2

49

340

2:6

317, 319

24:3-9, 15-19 340

2:7

319

24:15-19

340

14:1 (15:1)

36

24:17

320, 340

15:5 (16:5)

18:22-33

EXODUS

38:13-14 (39:12-13) 34

JOB 28:22

198

50(51):17

97

54:23

239

60:7 (61:4)

36

65:20

48

90:4

353, 388

109:1 (110:1) 58 117(118):22 92, 100 118:19 (119:19)

36

51

118:54 (119:54)

36

6:6

72

12

76

17:47

48

119:105

319

12:5

76

18(19):1-2

59

121:3

396

428

Index of Scriptures

139:8

201

34:2-23

140(141):2

97

34:11, 13, 16

231 131

PROVERBS

2 MACCABEES

1:30-31

37

2:17

95

1:30

11

6:12-17

217, 219

2:27

400

6:23

69

3:16

10

3:18

379

4

313

6:3

380

6:8

379

7:6, 7

399

7:20-23

191

9:2-8

317

392

DANIEL

3:15

154

3:23

48

1 ESDRAS

3:25

153

7:13-14

319

4:40

3:34

14, 236

12:1

210

9:7-8

392

10:12

203, 204

JONAH

11:31

219

2:1

240

MATTHEW

26:11

341

3:8

79

1:2-3

379

12:10-11

100

27:21

208

2:6

379

13

319

4:21

242

13:7-8

211

5–7

331

13:24-27

327

5:10-11

165

13:30

202 239

1:22

New Testament

MICAH 6:5

ISAIAH

48

340

8:13-14

92, 166

8:14

92

ZECHARIAH

5:11-12

212, 213

10:3

112

11:3-17

231

5:20-28

399

13:34, 35, 37

214

13:7

218

158

13:9-13

219, 223

6:25-34

239

14:28

56

10:3

379

14:34

239

10:19-20

215

12:1-12

400

14:34, 37, 38

239

14:37-38

239

11:2-3 28:16

92, 97

29:13

399

Apochrypha

6:15

40–55

73

40:6-8

80

TOBIT

40:11

231

3:11

49

13:55

379, 380

41:9

33, 382

4:14

69

15:8, 9

399

42:1

382

8:5

49

16:13-23

92

42:6

382

8:15

49

16:19

158

43:1-4

73, 76

11:14

49

17:1-8

317

43:20-21

101

11:17

49

22:37-39

395

43:21

103

13:1a

48

23

401

52–53

73

13:2

23:8-11

230

24:9-14

223

24:14

202

24:19

390

24:42, 43

239

24:43

354

25:13

239

25:31-46

327

52:13–53:12 59

49

2:4

379

3:33

379

3:37

391

4:13

54

6:16

379

6:27-38

161

9:28-36

317

12:11-13

215

49

16:26

242

24:12

51

MARK

19:35

239

24:23

51

1:15

202

21:12-19

223

1:16-17

10

21:12-15

215

147

21:24

202

13:18

53

128, 129, 173

4:9-12

49 49

79

WISDOM 6:10

167

JEREMIAH 2:8

231

SIRACH

32:29-30

218

16:11-12

33:11

389

LUKE 397

JUDITH

218

56

1:68

73

9:5-6

16:7

56

52:3

EZEKIEL

56

1:47

73, 76

231

56

14:72

1:14

52:3-4

63:11

14:66-71

26:38, 40, 41

1:29-31

239

Index of Scriptures

429

22:25-26

233

12

9, 48

3:1-2

90

2:11-21

399

22:25

233

14:23

230

3:10-15

217

2:11-16

357

23:49

8, 229

15

9, 289

3:16-17

94

2:11-14

272

24:34

228

15:14

289

5:11

191

3:1-3

399

24:36-39

174

15:22

230, 243

6:9-11

215

4:5

51

15:22, 27, 32

6:9-10

191

4:6

393

JOHN

379

6:11

382

5:1

401

1:35-42

10

16:7

39

6:19

94, 379

5:16

110

1:41-42

10

18:2

39

6:20

380

5:22-26

297

3

50

20:17-38

309

7

119, 140

5:23

150

5:24

217

7:9

299

5:27

391

ROMANS

6:68

10

1:1

11:15 13:36-38

7:12-16

154

EPHESIANS

380

7:16

146

1:2

382

381

1:6-7

381

7:21-24

119

1:3

48

312

1:7

293, 382

7:22

379

2:21

94

14:22

379

1:8-14

32

7:23

380

4:17

111

15–17

309

1:8

48, 56

9:5

11, 147

4:22, 25

89

15:9-10

395

1:28-31

191

9:25

299

5

145

16:20

212

2:4-6

357

12:3

393, 394

5:21-24

145

17:12

381

5:3-5

297

13:13

395

5:22-33

140

6:22

379

14:33b-35

146

5:25-33

139, 158

19:15-18, 25-27

56

8:15, 23

51

15:1-8

384

6:18

393, 394

20–21

10

8:26-27

394

15:5

10, 228

6:5-9

119

21

8, 11, 56, 231

8:26

393

16:19

38

6:5-6

122

8:33

92

21:15-19

56

6:6

379

9:33

92

21:17

56

2 CORINTHIANS

11:17-24

51

21:18-19

11, 312

1:2

293, 382

PHILIPPIANS

12:12

212

21:18

231

1:3a

48

1:1-2

31

12:13

205

21:23

202

1:3b-4

48

1:1

380

12:14, 17

161

1:19

9, 243

1:2

382

12:19

107

3:6

401

1:3-5

48

13:1-7

116

309

ACTS 1:13

379

4:16

150

1:12-30

13:1-2

115

2:9

39

6:16

94

1:17-18

212

13:12

89

2:31

198

9:25

235

3:20

109

13:13

190

2:34-35

59

11:2

139

4:1

235

14–15

3

2:42

394

12:21

190

4:8

297, 299

14:8

379

4:11

100

14:10-12

217

5:37

379

GALATIANS

15:14-33

32

7:13

101

1:1-3

15:14, 15

386

7:19

101

16:1-2

243

7:43, 46

311

8:26-40

128

1 CORINTHIANS

9:11

379

1:3

293, 382

10

272

1:4-5

48

COLOSSIANS 32

1:2

382

1:3

293, 382

1:3-8

32

1:18

272

1:13

109

2:1-14

268

2:1

32

2:1-10

272

2:16-23

399

2:7-8

10

3:8

89

2:8

3, 10

3:18-19

140

430

Index of Scriptures 2:4

175, 176, 177

23

2:11

377 25

3:18

145

3:8-13

229

11:13

109

3:19

158

3:8

232

12:4

15

3:22–4:1

119

4:3

24

12:23

3:22

122

4:10

397

13:2

24

2:14

4:10

9

5:1, 17-22

230

13:3

15

2:17

377

3:1

1, 25, 107

3:8-9

202

3:14

377

3:15-16

25

6:1-2

119

13:4

25

6:3-5

191

13:9

24

1 THESSALONIANS

6:12

111

1:1

9, 243, 382

6:20

376

1:2-3

48

2 TIMOTHY

1:5-8

158

2:19

235

1:2

382

1:12

235

2:5

330

4:4

314

1:21

89, 150

3:1-5

223

4:8

235

4:1-10

25

4:11

9

4:3

158

4:6-10

238

4:16

4:1-8

245

157

JAMES 1:1

380

4:3-4

157

4:13-18

197

TITUS

4:6

236, 238

4:15

202

1:3

397

4:7

238

4:9

386

1:4

382, 384

4:8-9

111

5:2

354

1:5-9

230

4:10

238

5:4

357

1:7

233

5:7-9

217

5:23

381

1:8

206

5:14

23

5:26-27

247

1:14

314

5:20

204

2:1-5

140

2:9-10

119, 122

1 PETER

2:10

397

1:1-2

290

2 THESSALONIANS 1:1

9, 243

1:2

382

3:1-2

116

1:1

268

2:3-10

211

3:4

397

1:2

382

3:5

50

1:10

270, 348

2:11

270, 348

2:12

270

3:12

150

1 TIMOTHY

PHILEMON

1:1

397

3

382

2:16

379

1:2

382

24

9

5:13

267

1:4

376

1:4; 4:7

314

HEBREWS

2:1-4

116

1:13

59

1:1

380

2:2

150

2:12

23

1:2

377

2:3

397

3:17-19

386

1:5

2:4

389

5:11-14

90

1:12-18

2:8-15

140

6:1-4

240

2:9-11

148

6:9

2:11-12

146

3

1 JOHN 2:12-14

236

2:21, 27

386

3:17-18

24

5:16-17

240

2 JOHN 2 John 3

382

3 JOHN 3 John 7

111

JUDE 1-2

377

2

382

4

271

5-7

25

5

271, 327

6

176, 177, 271, 333

7

271

8-16

163

8-10

337

8

271

9

271, 327, 337, 343, 377, 378

377

10

271

32

11

271

1:12

377

12

271

107

1:13-15

11

13

271, 377

7:14

379

1:16

314

14-15

230

10:32-34

15

1:21

382

175, 245, 328

3:1-7

229

10:34

52

2:1–3:3

377

14

377

3:2

206

163

16

271

11:5

2 PETER

391

2:1-22

Index of Scriptures 17

271, 377

18

271

21

382

REVELATION 2–3

40, 230

2:2

230

2:10

16, 235

2:13

16

2:14, 20

24

2:20

230

3:11

235

3:15-19

16

3:20-21

25

4:4, 10

235

5:5

379

6:2

235

6:9-11

16

7:5

379

9:7

235

12:1

235

12:3

235

13:1

235

13:11

248

13:15

16

14:14

235

17–18

163

17:1-6

116

18:1-4

116

18:9, 18

208

20:4-6

16

20:11-15

217

21:2

139

21:8

215

22:15

215

431