Darwinism and New England Theology

Related Media

Introduction

Until the nineteenth century, the Bible and science were thought to be two chapters of the same book, two pillars supporting the same truth, the latter the foundation of the former. The Bible was always considered as the authority, over and above science, never erring in all it affirmed. As Hannah says, “Clergyman and educators in the previous century generally viewed the Scriptures and scientific theory to be harmonious volumes in the revelation of God.”¹ But, with the advent of Charles Darwin and Darwinism all that changed. As Hannah has further observed,

Before the publication of Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Darwin’s Origin of the Species, the marriage of theology and science appeared as sacred and, hence, an inviolable institution.... The publication of Darwin’s Origin became the occasion whereby science sought, as Loewenberg has asserted, to be ‘freed from centuries of bondage to metaphysics and theology’.... As Hofstadter stated: ‘Religion has been forced to share it’s traditional authority with science, and American thought has been secularized..., evolution has been translated into divine purpose, and in the hands of skillful preachers religion enlivened and refreshed by the infusion of an authoritative idea from the field of science.’²

If Hofstadter’s conclusions even approach the facts of history, there can be no doubt that Charles Darwin and his ideas concerning the mechanics of evolution made a significant impact upon New England theology in the nineteenth century. The purpose of the rest of this paper is to seek to understand how Darwinism entered Congregational, New England theology and what effect it had upon theology and the interpretation of the Bible at that time. First, Darwinism will be defined. Second, having defined Darwinism and stated it’s main premises or tenets, this paper will seek to show how those tenets, once being rejected virtually wholesale, came to be embraced by scholars: religious and scientific. Third, and finally, having established what Darwinism is, and how it’s main tenets were eventually embraced by the academic community, we will turn our attention to the question of how Darwinism entered conservative New England theology and what the subsequent affect was upon Biblical/theological interpretation.

A Definition of Darwinism

Evolution may be defined generally as an “origination of species by development from earlier forms, not by special creation”³ or, in other words, “the development of the more complex forms of life from the simpler.”⁴ It is important to point out, at the outset, that in contrast to what many believe, Darwin was not the founder of the idea of “evolution.”⁵

No matter how much Darwin may have contributed, he did not originate the theory of evolution.... As far as we can determine, the concept of evolution had it’s beginnings about 700 B. C. in Ionia, Greece. Since that time a good many scientists, philosophers and theologians have discussed, theorized and written on the subject.⁶

Evolution, then, is this change from one life form (more primitive) to another life form (more complex). How does this happen? Or as Wyong has said, “A prerequisite to change in organisms is a mechanism to produce that change.”⁷ The question then is, “By what mechanism then, are species able to undergo change so as to result in new, different species?” The answer to that question is the point at which Darwin enters into the picture.

There were several theories advanced before Darwin claimed to have the answer. One theory, “acquired characteristics,” was advanced by the frenchman, Jean de Lamarck (1744-1829). He claimed that the modus operandi for evolution was the environment and individual need. “Lamarck’s contention was that changes forced upon the parents by environmental pressures would be inherited by the offspring.”⁸ However, Lamarck’s theories found no ready takers in the scientific community. He was heavily criticized by Cuvier and Charles Lyell.⁹

E. Jeoffery Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844), a contemporary of Lamarck, advanced another theory wherein he stated that “sudden changes or saltations in organisms”¹⁰ could produce new species. His idea was a forerunner to the mutation theory as understood and embraced by De Vries.

Still another major player in the development of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century was an English philosopher by the name of Herbert Spencer. He had developed a fully orbed theory of evolution which was rejected by his contemporaries. When Darwin came along Spencer attached himself to him and was recognized as the first person to use the phrase, “survival of the fittest.”¹¹

We also know that Thomas Malphus (An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798) exercised a great deal of influence upon Darwin and his thinking. And Chamber’s work, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1843-46) influenced Darwin as well.¹² In the Vestiges Chambers had made the claim that “mankind had emerged from the lower animals” but he had no mechanism to prove that it was so.¹³ Darwin, in contrast to Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Spencer et. al. on the other hand, had an answer.

Theory of the
Mechanics of Evolution

Now that we see the rich context in which Darwin was thinking let us turn to his theory of the mechanics of evolution. First, it is clear that Darwin, at least in the beginning of his career, when he wrote the Origin, was not an atheist. He simply believed his model of evolution explained how God brought about new life forms. As Eiseley has said,

Both (referring to Lamarck and Darwin) acknowledge a Creator, a Divine Author of all things, but both contend that the appearance of life on the planet, and it’s subsequent enormous radiation into divergent life forms, is the product of secondary law as unswerving as that which the astronomer reads in the heavens. God, in other words, has not personally superintended the emergence of every species of gnat, mole and cricket. Instead these have come about through the working out of natural forces....¹⁴

Darwin proposed a theory called “natural selection” as the driving force behind the evolutionary process. “According to Darwin, species will vary, with favorable variations being perpetuated and unfavorable variations disappearing with the individuals in which they were produced.”¹⁵

The essence of natural selection is Darwin’s suggestion that evolution is guided solely by the interaction between the population and it’s environment. The members of a population differ among themselves in a host of minor ways....Selection involves the preferential survival and reproduction of those individuals which by chance have inherited a variation that gives them an edge over their neighbors in coping with the local environment.¹⁶

In order for Darwin’s theory (also referred to as Darwinian developmentalism)¹⁷ to be correct there are at least 3 criteria that must be met: 1) unlimited time; 2) uniformitarianism and 3) mutability of the species; that is, one species can become another, totally new and different species, in the evolutionary process. All three of these were denied by the scientific community at the time and radically opposed by the religious community. The question then is what happened in these two communities that paved the road for the widespread acceptance of Darwin’s theories. This is the subject of the next section.

The Criteria of
Darwinian Evolution Are Met

During the early nineteenth century, the church, due to the work of men such as Ussher and Cuvier, believed in a relatively young earth, perhaps 4-6000 years old. However, as long as religious scholars continued to embrace the young earth theory, Darwin’s theories, which required that the earth be millions, if not billions of years old, would never be accepted.

Up until the time of Darwin the dominant geological view as held by both the scientific as well as religious community was known as catastrophism. The basic idea in this doctrine is the belief that the earth has undergone a number of great cataclysms , between which God did His creating of the various species. The fossil record, with species found at various levels in the earth’s strata (indicating different periods of existence and death at the time of a cataclysm) seemed to point to this end. Of course it was further believed because no evolutionist had sufficiently refuted this interpretation of the geological data in their attempts to advance their theories.

It wasn’t until the work of Charles Lyell (1797-1895) that all that changed. His book entitled, Principles of Geology...”was destined to destroy the reigning geological doctrine and introduce unlimited time and the play of natural forces once more into geology.”¹⁸ Natural forces may be interpreted here to mean uniformitarianism--another major tenet of Darwinism. As Barbour has observed,

As early as 1795 James Hutton had defended the opposing “uniformitarian” view, which assumed the operation of natural causes such as vulcanism, sedimentation, and erosion through great spans of time; Lyell carried uniformitarianism much further, and gave for a wide variety of geological phenomena the first detailed and systematic explanation which assumed that regular laws “within the existing order of nature” had acted throughout the past. Lyell’s portrayal of the long, slow working of natural processes was acknowledged by Darwin as a formative influence on his own thought.¹⁹

Thus it can be seen that Lyell’s work provided the basis for the acceptance of two of Darwin’s tenets: 1) unlimited time and 2) uniformitarianism. However, the mutability of the species (or transmutation) was not answered by Lyell’s work. He simply provided the time necessary for such a process to take place.

Linnaeus, a century before, had worked out an elaborate scheme demonstrating the fixity of the species. This continued to enable the scientific community, as well as the religious community, to hold to some form of special creation.

However, Buffon softened the work of Linnaeus et al. somewhat, when he explained the survival of one species over another as a “struggle to survive.” Lamarck, as was discussed, suggested inherent characteristics as the driving force that selected some species and not others for survival and subsequent propagation. This further weakened the fixity of the species. Darwin, of course, dealt the death blow to the notion of the fixity of the species. Natural selection, he claimed, is the “way” in which evolution takes place. It is the driving force in the mutability of the species. The ideas found in Darwin’s natural selection can be seen in Lamarck and Buffon: 1) random variations (Buffon); 2) struggle for survival and 3) survival of the fittest. Although Darwin did not apply his evolutionary theory to man in the Origin, he did twelve years later in The Descent of Man (1871).²⁰

By way of summary, it is correct to say, that at the turn of the nineteenth century, the religious community accepted the “truths” that the earth was only a few thousand years old (limited time), that catastrophism was geologically accurate (not uniformitarianism), the fixity of the species (not mutability) and that the creation of man was instant, directly from the hand of God (not a developed creature from lower life forms). By the end of the century that had changed. The remaining question then, is “How did Darwin’s theories (and the premises upon which they are built) enter New England theology?” This is the subject of the final section of the paper.

The Entrance of
Darwinism into New England Theology

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the entrance of Darwinian theory (ultimately developmentalism and the origin of man) into New England theology. It will be shown that the clergy of that time period readily accepted the theories of unlimited time and uniformitarianism and therefore, shifted their interpretation of Genesis 1, 2 in order to align themselves with the new geology. The acceptance of Darwinian Developmentalism, on the other hand, met with much greater resistance. It was not until the work of Frederick Wright and Asa Gray that Developmentalism was considered plausible by New England theologians.²¹

The church had held to the “young earth” theory until the time of Charles Lyell. Lyell’s work convincingly demonstrated (at least to the thinkers of that time) that the earth had been in existence for an unlimited period of time (i.e. so long it could not be accurately measured) and that natural processes, uniformly applied over the length of that existence, could account for what men saw and studied in creation. Thus it became the work of the theologian to harmonize the Biblical account in Genesis (and the so-called “young earth” theory) with the “new geology.”

One such scholar, John O. Mears postulated at least three possible theories to harmonize Genesis with the findings of geology: “a Gap Theory in Genesis 1 of indefinite time followed by a divine creation (or re-formation) in six twenty-four hour consecutive periods, a Day-Age-Day Theory of indefinite periods between twenty-four hour creative periods, and a Day-Age Theory of indefinite periods. He opted for the third view, thus conceding an important bulwark of traditional religion, limited time.”²² Even James Dwight Dana (holder of the Sillimen Professorship at Yale [1856]), who always opposed a purely materialistic Developmentalism,²³ agreed that geology and the scriptural record must be harmonized in the fashion after Mears.²⁴ As Hannah observes, “Scientific theory was clearly beginning to shape the interpretation of Scripture among the New England Clergy.”²⁵ And with the impetus afforded by the thoughts of Benjamen Silliman of Yale College (a training center for New School Presbyterianism), the clergy of New England readily accepted this re-interpretation of Genesis 1 to conform with science.²⁶ With Genesis 1 re-interpreted in the light of the “new geology” the stage was set for the struggle which led to the acceptance of Developmentalism (based upon Darwinian natural selection) in New England theolgy.

In order to understand how Developmentalism (the belief that lower life forms result in higher life forms through evolutionary processes) found root among conservative theologians of the nineteenth century we turn first to the debate and struggle between a professor of Greek at Union College, Taylor Lewis,²⁷ and James Dana, a Yale trained scientist. Lewis published a book entitled, The Six Days of Creation in 1855, to which Dana responded by writing four articles in Bibliotheca Sacra in which he tried to defend the position that Developmentalism of any sort (Lewis’ or anybody else’s) was untenable in light of geological, zoological and Biblical data. Lewis felt it quite plausible that “the human body might have been a growth through natural laws and processes originated by God and quickened by him to higher developments.”²⁸ Dana reacted vigorously to Lewis’ ideas claiming them to be absurd and false philosophically, to say the least. The reaction of New England Congregationalism (as evidenced in the Bibliotheca Sacra journal),²⁹ subsequent to the Lewis/Dana debate, followed in a similar vein. Hannah summarizes well the response of New England theologians up until the1870’s as follows:

... the response of Bibliotheca Sacra (and thus N.E. theology) from the inception of the developmentalist debate with the reaction to Chambers’ publication of the Vestiges, Dana’s response to Lewis’ Six Days of Creation, and the later response in the early 1870’s as the issue focused forcibly in the thought of Darwin, was one of rejection and hostility. Developmentalism was not only viewed as a threat to religion, but a denial of transcendence; it was viewed as a travesty of not only sound reason, but a violation of the facts of science.³⁰

Thus it remained for some other conservative theologians to emerge, who would grant the probability (i.e through scientific and Biblical data) to Developmentalism that it needed in order to gain a foothold in New England theology. Some theologians needed to come forth who could articulate a palatable form of Developmentalism without either destroying the argument from design or deprecating man. Such was the work of two men, namely, Frederick Wright (1838-1921), a new school Presbyterian clergyman³¹ and Asa Gray (1810-1888), a Harvard botanist and theist.³² They became, as Livingstone has suggested,³³ an “evangelical alliance” in the propagation of Developmentalism among religious scholars.

These men tried to show that Darwinian Developmentalism (which requires the mutability of the species) was not incompatible with New England theology. And when all was said and done it might be said that they in fact succeeded, as far as their generation was concerned. Wright, as the editor of Bibliotheca Sacra at the time wrote a number of articles attempting to show the harmonious relationship between New England Calvinism and Developmentalism. According to Hannah,³⁴ Wright argued that the solidarity of human race (a Calvinistic notion) is affirmed in Developmentalism, that Lamarck’s “acquired characteristics” and Darwin’s natural selection are both God-ordained means to produce the beneficial mutations resulting in divergent life forms. Thus the whole process finds it’s basis in God as the master Designer. Wright also compared the mystery in Calvinism (i.e. foreordination and free will) with the mystery in the forces that operate in Developmentalism. Apparently He was attempting to help others understand, that as they accepted the mystery in theology (and did not toss it out simply because they were not able to understand it all), they should also accept it in Darwinism (and not discard it needlessly). When Gray and Wright were done arguing for a Darwinian explanation of creation (that is, with respect to secondary causes) it could be said (as Wright himself said) that “‘Darwinism [had] been styled the Calvinistic interpretation of nature.’“³⁵ Thus, Darwinism had made it’s way into nineteenth century, conservative theology.

Conclusion

The purpose of the paper was to show how Darwinism entered into nineteenth century conservative theology and what affect it had. In order to accomplish this we defined Darwinism first. We said it was the specific mechanism (i.e. natural selection) by which evolutionary processes were carried forth from one generation to the next. Next we demonstrated how three premises essential to Darwinism, namely, unlimited time, uniformitarianism and mutability of the species, came to be accepted by scholars. Finally we showed how the religious community, though radically opposed to Darwinian Developmentalism at first (i.e. Dana) in the end came to accept and embrace it (through the work of Wright and Gray) as an acceptable (that is, consistent with New England Calvinism) means of Divine creation of new species, including man.

Thus it can be seen from the paper that Darwinian notions affected Biblical interpretation, in terms of the Genesis 1 time frame for creation, as well as the creation of man; as instant and directly from the hand of God. Subsequently it was acceptable to see man as descended from a lower life form with God intervening at some point to infuse life in him.

Bibliography

Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion. New York: Harper & Row, Ltd. 1966.

Bowler, Peter J. Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990.

Clark, Robert E. D. Darwin: Before and After. An Examination and Assessment. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids International Publication, 1958.

Eiseley, Loren C. Darwin’s Century. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1958.

Haber, Francis C. The Age of the World: Moses to Darwin. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959.

Hannah, John D. “Bibliotheca Sacra and Darwinism: An Analysis the Nineteenth-Century Conflict Between Science and Theology.” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983): 37-58.

Hayward, Alan. Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies. London: Triangle, 1985.

Lewis, Taylor. “Letter.” Bibliotheca Sacra 13 (1856).

Livingstone, David N. Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.

Pfeifer, Edward Justin. “The Reception of Darwinism in the United States, 1859-1880.” PhD. Diss., Dept. of American Civilization, Brown University, 1958.

Smith, Charles R. “Is There a Gap Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?” ThM. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

___________, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1959 ed. S.v. “Evolution.”

Wilson, David B, ed. Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution Debate. Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1983.

Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Debate: Toward a Rational Solution. Lansing, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976.

Zimmerman, Paul A, ed. Darwin, Evolution, and Creation. Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

1 John D. Hannah, “Bibliotheca Sacra and Darwinism: An Analysis of the Nineteenth-Century Conflict Between Science and Religion,” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983) 37.

2 Ibid, p. 37, 38.

3 The Concise Oxford Dictionary 4th ed. Ed H.W. Fowler and F. G Fowler (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

4 Wilbert H. Rusch, “Darwinism, Science, and the Bible,” in Darwin, Evolution and Creation, (St. Louis MO.: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p.12.

5 Edward Justin Pfeifer, “The Reception of Darwinism in the United States, 1859-1880.” (Ph D. diss. Brown University, 1958) p.1.

6 Ibid., p. 5. See also Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1958), pp. 7-11. R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), p.55.

7 R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), p.265.

8 Ibid., p.265. Darwin was a disciple of Lamarck at one time.

9 Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin:The Man and His Influence (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990), p.18. cf. also Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (New York: Anchor Books, 1958), p.193.

10 Wilbert H. Rusch, “Darwinism, Science, and the Bible,” in Darwin, Evolution and Creation, (St. Louis MO.: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 17.

11 Ibid, p.17

12 Ibid., p.19.

13 Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin:The Man and His Influence (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990), p.18, 19.

14 Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (New York: Anchor Books, 1958), p.193.

15 Wilbert H. Rusch, “Darwinism, Science, and the Bible,” in Darwin, Evolution and Creation, (St. Louis MO.: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 19.

16 Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin:The Man and His Influence (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990), p. 12.

17 John D. Hannah, “Bibliotheca Sacra and Darwinism: An Analysis of the Nineteenth-Century Conflict Between Science and Religion,” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983) 37.

18 Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (New York: Anchor Books, 1958), p.98.

19 Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966), p. 82.

20 Ibid, p. 86

21 Much of the material in this section comes from John D. Hannah’s analysis of the question. The section is an attempt to summarize his work as well as integrate the thoughts of others. cf. John D. Hannah, “Bibliotheca Sacra and Darwinism: An Analysis of the Nineteenth-Century Conflict Between Science and Religion,” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983), pp. 41-58.

22 John D. Hannah, “Bibliotheca Sacra and Darwinism: An Analysis of the Nineteenth-Century Conflict Between Science and Religion,” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983), p. 42.

23 According to Hannah (p. 57), Dana came to embrace darwinian evolution, but with the quickening work of God in relation to man.

24 David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders (Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1987), p. 71, 72.

25 John D. Hannah, “BSac and Darwinism” Grace (1983) 43.

26 Ibid., p. 43.

27 David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders , p. 71.

28 Taylor Lewis, Letter, BSac 13 (1856) 471.

29 David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders , p. 71. He refers to BSac as “the main organ of Congregationalist Evangelicalism.”

30 John D. Hannah, “BSac and Darwinism” Grace (1983) 47.

31 David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders , p. 64.

32 Francis C. Haber, The Age of the World: Moses to Darwin (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), pp. 2, 287.

33 David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders , p. 65. Livingstone suggests Dana as the third member of the alliance, p. 70.

34 John D. Hannah, “BSac and Darwinism” Grace (1983), pp.51-53..

35 Ibid., p. 53.

The Non-Pauline Epistles

Introduction

We now come to the final eight epistles of the New Testament canon, seven of which have often been called the General or Catholic Epistles, though Hebrews has been excluded from this description. The term Catholic was used in the sense of general or universal to distinguish them from the Pauline Epistles which were addressed to churches or persons.⁷³ In their addresses (with the exception of 2 and 3 John) they were not limited to a single locality. As an illustration, James is addressed “to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” (1:1), which is a designation for believers everywhere (likely all Jewish Christians at that early date). Then 1 Peter is addressed “to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” a designation to believers in these various areas. The epistles of 2 and 3 John have also been included in this group even though they were addressed to specific individuals. Because of these differences, in this study these eight books are simply being called “the Non-Pauline Epistles.” It should be noted that the Pauline Epistles are titled according to their addressees, but, with the exception of Hebrews, all these epistles are titled according to the names of their authors.

In general, we may say that James and 1 Peter are ethical, calling believers to a holy walk with the Savior. Second Peter and Jude are eschatological, warning believers against the presence of false teachers and calling them to contend for the faith. Hebrews and the Epistles of John are primarily Christological and ethical, calling Christians to abide in Christ as God’s final revelation and fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant, to experience His life, and not go beyond the truth of the gospel.

These eight epistles exert an influence out of proportion to their length (less than 10 percent of the New Testament). They supplement the thirteen Pauline Epistles by offering different perspectives on the richness of Christian truth. Each of the five authors—James, Peter, John, Jude, and the author of Hebrews—has a distinctive contribution to make from his own point of view. Like the four complementary approaches to the life of Christ in the Gospels, these writers provide a sweeping portrait of the Christian life in which the total is greater than the sum of the parts. Great as Paul’s epistles are, the New Testament revelation after Acts would be severely limited by one apostolic perspective if the writings of these five men were not included.⁷⁴

Hebrews

Author and Title:

For some 1,200 years (from c. A.D. 400 to 1600) this book was commonly entitled, “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,” but there was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship. The oldest and most reliable title is Pros Ebraious, “To Hebrews.”

As stated, the author is unknown. Many suggestions have been made and very elaborate arguments put forth by scholars, but the fact is the author is nowhere named in the book and is in essence, like its place of writing, date, and even its readership, unknown. Ryrie writes:

Many suggestions have been made for the author of this anonymous book—Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Aquila and Priscilla, and Clement of Rome. There are both resemblances and dissimilarities to the theology and style of Paul, but Paul frequently appeals to his own apostolic authority in his letters, while this writer appeals to others who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry (2:3). It is safest to say, as did the theologian Origen in the third century, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews.⁷⁵

Because of the uncertainty of its authorship, its recognition as a part of the New Testament canon, at least in the West, was delayed until the fourth century when it was finally accepted in the Western church through the testimonies of Jerome and Augustine. Because Paul was considered to be the author by the Eastern church, it was always accepted.

The issue of its canonicity was again raised during the Reformation, but the spiritual depth and quality of Hebrews bore witness to its inspiration, despite its anonymity.

Chapter 13, verses 18-24, tell us that this book was not anonymous to the original readers; they evidently knew the author. For some reason, however, early church tradition is divided over the identity of the author. Part of the church attributed it to Paul; others preferred Barnabas, Luke, or Clement; and some chose anonymity. Thus, external evidence will not help determine the author.

Internal evidence must be the final court of appeal, but here too, the results are ambiguous. Some aspects of the language, style, and theology of Hebrews are very similar to Paul’s epistles, and the author also refers to Timothy (13:23). However, significant differences have led the majority of biblical scholars to reject Pauline authorship of this book: (1) The Greek style of Hebrews is far more polished and refined than that found in any of Paul’s recognized epistles. (2) In view of Paul’s consistent claims to be an apostle and an eyewitness of Christ, it is very doubtful that he would have used the phraseology found in chapter 2, verse 3: “which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.” (3) The lack of Paul’s customary salutation, which includes his name, goes against the firm pattern found in all his other epistles. (4) While Paul used both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint to quote from the Old Testament, the writer of Hebrews apparently did not know Hebrew and quoted exclusively from the Septuagint. (5) Paul’s common use of compound titles to refer to the Son of God is not followed in Hebrews, which usually refers to Him as Christ, Jesus, and Lord. (6) Hebrews concentrates on Christ’s present priestly ministry, but Paul’s writings have very little to say about the present work of Christ. Thus, Hebrews appears not to have been written by Paul although the writer shows a Pauline influence. The authority of Hebrews in no way depends upon Pauline authorship, especially since it does not claim to have been written by Paul.⁷⁶

The Recipients:

Since the recipients are not mentioned as in the Pauline Epistles, we might say a word about them. The very nature of the book with its many Old Testament quotations and the emphasis on the sacrificial system strongly suggests they were Hebrews. Writing in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Zane C. Hodges says:

The identity of the first readers of Hebrews, like the author, is unknown. Nevertheless they were evidently part of a particular community. This appears from several considerations. The readers had a definite history and the writer referred to their “earlier days” (Heb. 10:32-34); he knew about their past and present generosity to other Christians (6:10); and he was able to be specific about their current spiritual condition (5:11-14). Moreover, the author had definite links with them and expressed his intention to visit them, perhaps with Timothy (13:19, 23). He also requested their prayers (13:18).

In all probability the readers were chiefly of Jewish background. Though this has sometimes been questioned, the contents of the epistle argue for it. Of course the ancient title “To the Hebrews” might be only a conjecture, but it is a natural one. When everything is said for a Gentile audience that can be said, the fact remains that the author’s heavy stress on Jewish prototypes and his earnest polemic against the permanence of the Levitical system are best explained if the audience was largely Jewish and inclined to be swayed back to their old faith. The heavy and extensive appeal to the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures also was most suitable to readers who had been brought up on them.⁷⁷

Date: A.D. 64-68

Several things suggest a date sometime between A.D. 64-68. First, the book was quoted by Clement of Rome in A.D. 95 so it had to have been written before that time. Second, it seems quite apparent that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 for the following reasons. First, surely the author would have mentioned the temple’s destruction along with the end of the Jewish sacrificial system if such an event of this importance had occurred, especially in view of the argument of this book. Second, the author uses the Greek present tense over and over when speaking of the temple and the priestly activities which suggest they were still going on (see 5:1-3; 7:23, 27; 8:3-5; 9:6-9, 13, 25; 10:1, 3-4, 8, 11; 13:10-11). Third, the author refers to Timothy’s recent release in 13:23, which, if in connection with his ministry to Paul in Rome, requires a date in the late 60s.

Theme and Purpose:

Clearly, the theme of Hebrews is the surpassing greatness of Christ or His superiority, and thus also that of Christianity to the Old Testament system. Several words, better, perfect, and heavenly, are prominently used to demonstrate this. As his primary purpose, the author seeks to demonstrate five significant ways Christ is superior or better. As the Son, He is: (1) superior to the Old Testament prophets (1:1-3), (2) to angels (1:4-2:18), (3) to Moses (3:1-6), (4) to Joshua (3:7-4:16), and (5) to Aaron’s priesthood (5:1-10:18). The goal of this theme is to warn his readers against the dangers of giving up the substance of what they have in Christ for the temporary shadows of the Old Testament system. Thus, the readers are admonished to go on to maturity and their reward as faithful believers, partakers of their heavenly calling. To do this, there are five warning passages inserted to challenge them to progress in their Christian faith (2:1-4; 3:1-4:13; 5:11-6:20; 10:26-39; 12:14-29).

Key Words:

The key words are better, which occurs some thirteen times, perfect, which occurs nine times, and heavenly, which occurs six times. Thus, the key concept, for Hebrews is the superiority or the surpassing greatness of Christ.

Key Verses:

2:1-4 Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2:2 For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, 2:3 how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first communicated through the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, 2:4 while God confirmed their witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
4:12-13 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. 4:13 And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to his eyes to whom we must render an account.
4:14-16 Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 4:16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.
12:1-2 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us, 12:2 keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

Key Chapters:

Chapter 1, which so strongly declares the deity of Christ as the Son and final revelation of God, is certainly a key chapter, but chapter 11 also stands out as the great Hall of Fame and Faith chapter. In pointing to the many Old Testament saints who lived by faith, it demonstrates the truth of 11:6, “Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

Christ as Seen in Hebrews:

In accomplishing the purpose to show the superiority of Christ, Hebrews undoubtedly becomes the most Christological single book of the New Testament. Here he is declared as Son, as the very outshining and representation of the essence of God (1:3, 13), as the one who sat at God’s right hand (1:3), as the one declared by God the Father as God (1:8-9), as the eternal Creator (1:10-12), and as the eternal Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (7). Here Christ is presented as the divine-human Prophet, Priest, and King. He is seen as our Redeemer who, having been made like His brethren, has once and for all dealt with our sin and done that which the temporary sacrifices could never do. As such, He has now passed into the heavens as our Great High Priest as one who sympathizes with our weaknesses.

Outline:

I. The Superiority of Christ to Old Covenant Leaders (1:1-7:28)

A. Christ Is Superior to Old Testament Prophets (1:1-3)

B. Christ Is Superior to the Angels (1:4-2:18)

C. Christ Is Superior to Moses (3:1-6)

D. Christ Is Superior to Joshua (3:7-4:13)

E. Christ Is Superior to the Aaronic Priesthood (4:14-7:28)

1. Exhortation to hold fast (4:14-16)

2. Qualifications of a priest (5:1-10)

3. Exhortation to abandon spiritual lethargy (5:11-6:12)

4. Certainty of God’s promise (6:13-20)

5. Christ’s superior priestly order (chap. 7)

II. The Superior Sacrificial Work as Our High Priest (chaps. 8-10)

A. A Better Covenant (chap. 8)

B. A Better Sanctuary (9:1-12)

C. A Better Sacrifice (9:13-10:18)

D. Exhortations (10:19-39)

III. Final Plea for Persevering Faith (chaps. 11-12)

A. Examples of Past Heroes of the Faith (chap. 11)

B. Encouragement for Persevering Faith (12:1-11)

C. Exhortations for Persevering Faith (12:12-17)

D. Motivation for Persevering Faith (12:18-29)

IV. Conclusion (chap. 13)

A. Practical Principles for the Christian Life (13:1-17)

B. Request for Prayer (13:18-19)

C. Benediction (13:20-21)

D. Personal Remarks (13:22-23)

E. Greetings and Final Benediction (13:24-25)

James

Author and Title:

This epistle begins with “James of God … to the twelve tribes.” To clearly indicate the sender, the NET Bible translates, “From James, a bond-servant of God … to the twelve tribes …” But there were four men with the name James in the New Testament. These were: (1) the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Mark 1:19), (2) the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18), (3) the father of Judas (not Iscariot; Luke 6:16), and (4) the half brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). Regarding this, Ryrie writes:

Of the four men bearing the name James in the New Testament, only two have been proposed as the author of this letter—James the son of Zebedee (and brother of John) and James the half brother of Jesus. It is unlikely that the son of Zebedee was the author, for he was martyred in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2). The authoritative tone of the letter not only rules out the two lesser known Jameses of the New Testament (“James the Less” and the James of Luke 6:16) but points to the half brother of Jesus who became the recognized leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). This conclusion is supported by the resemblances in the Greek between this epistle and the speech of James at the Council of Jerusalem (James 1:1 and Acts 15:23; James 1:27 and Acts 15:14; James 2:5 and Acts 15:13).⁷⁸

In the Greek text, the book is simply titled Jakobos from James 1:1. The early title was Jakobou Epistle, “Epistle of James.” But James was actually Jacob (Iakobos). Exactly why the English translators chose “James” rather than “Jacob” is uncertain. “James,” “Jake,” and “Jacob” all come from the same root. Bible translations in other languages tend to utilize the transliterated name from the Hebrew yaaqob, “Jacob.” One might wonder if King James desired to see his name in the English translation he authorized.

Recipients:

Again, due to the way James addresses the recipients, a comment is needed here as well. James is addressed “to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad (diaspora), greetings.” As is suggested from “my brethren” in 1:19 and 2:1, 7, this is a reference, not to the dispersion that occurred between A.D. 66-70, but to the Jews dispersed from their homeland through the past dispersions (see Matt. 1:11, 12, 17). In the early chapters of Acts, Jews were in Jerusalem from all parts of the world for Pentecost (see Acts 1:5). Many of these saw and heard the phenomena of Pentecost and came to believe in Christ. Eventually, many returned to their respective homes in various parts of the world. It is to these that James was writing. Others, however, see this as a reference to those Christian Jews who had been scattered after the death of Stephen.⁷⁹

Date: A.D. 45 or 46

While a few suggest a date for James as earlier as the late 30s and some as late as A.D. 150, most scholars date the book about A.D. 45. The reasons are as follows: (1) There is a very distinctive Jewish character to the book which suggests it was written when the church was still predominantly Jewish. (2) There is no reference made to the controversy over Gentile circumcision. (3) The Greek term synagoge (“synagogue” or “meeting”) is used to designate the meeting or meeting place of the church rather than “church,” ekklesia (2:2). (4) The lack of reference to issues involved in the Jerusalem Council like the relationship of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians (Acts 15:1f.; A.D. 49) also suggests a very early date. (5) “The allusions to the teachings of Christ have such little verbal agreement with the synoptic Gospels that they probably preceded them.”⁸⁰

Theme and Purpose:

A great deal of controversy exists regarding the precise nature of the theme and purpose of this epistle. Regarding this controversy, Ron Blue writes:

Few books of the Bible have been more maligned than the little Book of James. Controversy has waged over its authorship, its date, its recipients, its canonicity, and its unity.

It is well known that Martin Luther had problems with this book. He called it a “right strawy epistle.” But it is only “strawy” to the degree it is “sticky.” There are enough needles in this haystack to prick the conscience of every dull, defeated, and degenerated Christian in the world. Here is a “right stirring epistle” designed to exhort and encourage, to challenge and convict, to rebuke and revive, to describe practical holiness and drive believers toward the goal of a faith that works. James is severely ethical and refreshingly practical.⁸¹

Clearly, James is concerned about possessing a faith that works, one that is vital, powerful, and functional. But part of the controversy concerns the nature of that faith. Is he writing to develop the characteristics of a true faith versus a false faith of just a professing believer, or is he talking about a genuine faith of a true believer, but one whose faith has become dead and inactive and thus useless? Some would assert that James “effectively uses these characteristics as a series of tests to help his reader evaluate the reality of their relationship to Christ.”⁸² Others would stress that James is writing to warn believers about the consequences of a dead, inactive faith both personally and corporately and to stir them to growth and true spiritual maturity. In keeping with this focus, Blue has an excellent summary of James’ purpose:

The purpose of this potent letter is to exhort the early believers to Christian maturity and holiness of life. This letter deals more with the practice of the Christian faith than with its precepts. James told his readers how to achieve spiritual maturity through a confident stand, compassionate service, careful speech, contrite submission, and concerned sharing. He dealt with every area of a Christian’s life: what he is, what he does, what he says, what he feels, and what he has.

With his somewhat stern teaching on practical holiness, James showed how Christian faith and Christian love should be expressed in a variety of actual situations. The seemingly unrelated parts of the book can be harmonized in light of this unified theme. The pearls are not rolling around in some box; they are carefully strung to produce a necklace of priceless beauty.⁸³

Key Words:

In a book of only five chapters, faith occurs sixteen times. This, plus the strong emphasis on godly living and the repetition of works, working thirteen times in chapter 2, shows these are the two key words of the book.

Key Verses:

1:2-5. My brothers and sisters, consider it nothing but joy when you fall into all sorts of trials, 1:3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 1:4 And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you will be perfect and complete, not deficient in anything. 1:5 But if anyone is deficient in wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without reprimand, and it will be given to him.
1:19-27 Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters! Let every person be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. 1:20 For human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. 1:21 So put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the message implanted within you, which is able to save your souls. 1:22 But be sure you live out the message and do not merely listen to it and so deceive yourselves. 1:23 For if someone merely listens to the message and does not live it out, he is like someone who gazes at his natural face in a mirror. 1:24 For he gazes at himself and then goes out and immediately forgets what sort of person he was. 1:25 But the one who peers into the perfect law of liberty and sticks with it, and does not become a forgetful listener but one who lives it out—he will be blessed in what he does. 1:26 If someone thinks he is religious and does not control his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is futile. 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep yourself unstained by the world.
2:14-17. What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? 2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself.

Key Chapters:

Choosing a key chapter in James is difficult, but chapters 1 and 4 certainly stand out. Chapter 1 is key in that it gives us vital information on the nature and purpose of trials and temptation. Trials build character and produce maturity when mixed with faith, and our temptations come from within and never from God. Chapter 4 is also a key chapter because of what it teaches us about the true source of quarrels, the adulterous nature of worldliness, drawing near to God, and resisting Satan who flees when we draw near to God and resist him. Other key subjects found in other chapters are: faith and works (2:14-26), the use of the tongue (3:1-12), and prayer for the sick (5:13-16).

Christ as Seen in James:

In 1:1 and 2:1, James specifically refers to the “Lord Jesus Christ” and then anticipates His coming in 5:7-8. “In the 108 verses of the epistle there are references or allusions from 22 books of the Old Testament and at least 15 allusions to the teachings of Christ as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount.”⁸⁴

Outline:⁸⁵

I. Stand with Confidence (chap. 1)

A. Salutation and greeting (1:1)

B. Rejoice in diverse trials (1:2-12)

1. Attitude in trials (1:2)

2. Advantage of trials (1:3-4)

3. Assistance for trials (1:5-12)

C. Resist in deadly temptation (1:13-18)

1. Source of temptation (1:13-14)

2. Steps in temptation (1:15-16)

3. Solution for temptation (1:17-18)

D. Rest in divine truth (1:19-27)

1. Receptivity to the Word (1:19-21)

2. Responsiveness to the Word (1:22-25)

3. Resignation to the Word (1:26-27)

II. Serve with Compassion (chap. 2)

A. Accept others (2:1-13)

1. Courtesy to all (2:1-4)

2. Compassion for all (2:5-9)

3. Consistency in all (2:10-13)

B. Assist others (2:14-26)

1. Expression of true faith (2:14-17)

2. Evidence of true faith (2:18-20)

3. Examples of true faith (2:21-26)

III. Speak with Care (chap. 3)

A. Control talk (3:1-12)

1. The tongue is powerful (3:1-5)

2. The tongue is perverse (3:6-8)

3. The tongue is polluted (3:9-12)

B. Cultivate thought (3:13-18)

1. Wisdom is humble (3:13)

2. Wisdom is gracious (3:14-16)

3. Wisdom is peaceable (3:17-18)

IV. Submit with Contrition (chap. 4)

A. Turn hatred into humility (4:1-6)

1. Cause of conflict (4:1-2)

2. Consequence of conflict (4:3-4)

3. Cure for conflict (4:5-6)

B. Turn judgment into justice (4:7-12)

1. Advice for justice (4:7-9)

2. Advantage of justice (4:10-11)

3. Author of justice (4:12)

C. Turn boasting into belief (4:13-17)

1. Statement of boasting (4:13)

2. Sentence on boasting (4:14)

3. Solution for boasting (4:15-17)

V. Share with Concern (chap. 5)

A. Share in possessions (5:1-6)

1. Consternation from wealth (5:1)

2. Corrosion of wealth (5:2-3)

3. Condemnation in wealth (5:4-6)

B. Share in patience (5:7-12)

1. Essence of patience (5:7-9)

2. Examples of patience (5:10-11)

3. Evidence of patience (5:12)

C. Share in prayer (5:13-20)

1. Sensitivity to needs (5:13)

2. Supplication for needs (5:14-18)

3. Significance of needs (5:19-20)

First Peter

Author and Title:

That the apostle Peter is the author is clearly stated in the opening verse, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). Not only was 1 Peter universally recognized as a work of the apostle Peter by the early church, but there is strong internal evidence that attests to his authorship as well. As for the external evidence, Eusebius placed 1 Peter among the homologoumena, and no book has earlier or stronger attestation than 1 Peter as evidenced by 2 Peter 3:1.

The letter was explicitly ascribed to Peter by that group of church fathers whose testimonies appear in the attestation of so many of the genuine NT writings, namely, Irenaeus (A.D. 140-203), Tertullian (150-222), Clement of Alexandria (155-215) and Origen (185-253). It is thus clear that Peter’s authorship of the book has early and strong support.⁸⁶

The internal evidence for Peter’s authorship is as follows: (1) There are clear similarities between this letter and the sermons of Peter recorded in Acts (cf. 1 Pet. 1:20 with Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 4:5 with Acts 10:42). (2) The Greek word xylon, “wood, tree,” is used by Peter of the cross in Acts and 1 Peter (cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:24). (3) The themes, concepts, and various allusions to Peter’s experiences with the Lord’s earthly ministry and the apostolic age also supports Peter’s authorship (cf. 1:8; 2:23; 3:18; 4:1; 5:1).

Even with this evidence, some modern scholars have challenged Peter’s authorship on several grounds. Their arguments with answers are summarized by Roger Raymer in the following:

Until relatively recent times the authenticity of the epistle’s claim to apostolic authorship went unchallenged. Then some modern scholars noted that Peter was considered by Jewish religious leaders as “unschooled” and “ordinary” (Acts 4:13). The superb literary style and sophisticated use of vocabulary in 1 Peter seem to indicate that its author must have been a master of the Greek language. Those who deny Peter’s authorship say that such an artistic piece of Greek literature could not possibly have flowed from the pen of a Galilean fisherman.

Though Peter could be called “unschooled” and though Greek was not his native tongue, he was by no means ordinary. The Jewish leaders saw Peter as unschooled simply because he had not been trained in rabbinical tradition, not because he was illiterate. Luke also recorded (Acts 4:13) that these same leaders were astonished by Peter’s confidence and the power of his Spirit-controlled personality. Peter’s public ministry spanned more than 30 years and took him from Jerusalem to Rome. He lived and preached in a multilingual world. It is reasonable to believe that after three decades Peter could have mastered the language of the majority of those to whom he ministered.

The rhetorical style and use of metaphor employed in 1 Peter could just as easily be credited to an accomplished public speaker as to a literary scholar. Certainly Peter had the time and talent to become an outstanding communicator of the gospel via the Greek language.

Any further doubts of Petrine authorship based on linguistic style may be answered by the fact that Peter apparently employed Silas as his secretary (1 Peter 5:12). Silas, though a Jerusalem Christian, was a Roman citizen (Acts 16:36-37) and may have had great facility in the Greek language. But whether or not Silas aided Peter with the grammatical Greek nuances, the epistle’s content still remains Peter’s personal message, stamped with his personal authority.⁸⁷

Recipients:

The epistle is addressed to “To those temporarily residing in the dispersion (in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia) who are chosen.” Peter used two key words to describe the recipients, “temporary residents” (Greek, parepidemos, a word which emphasizes both temporary residents and alien nationality) and “dispersion” (Greek, diaspora, “dispersion.”). This word “normally refers to Jews not living in Palestine but scattered out across the Mediterranean world. But here it is probably metaphorical, used of Gentile Christians spread out as God’s people in the midst of a godless world.”⁸⁸ But perhaps, Peter had both Jew and Gentile believers in view:

First Peter is addressed to Christians scattered throughout five Roman provinces of the peninsula of Asia Minor. That area today is northern Turkey. The churches in those provinces were made up of both Jews and Gentiles. This epistle is rich in references to and quotations from the Old Testament. Jewish Christians would have found special significance in the term diasporas, translated “scattered,” used in the salutation (1:1). Jews who lived outside of Jerusalem were referred to as living in the diaspora.

Gentile readers would have noted Peter’s exhortation to holy living in light of their background of complete ignorance of God’s Word (1:14). Gentile Christians also would have been greatly encouraged by the fact that though they were in ignorance, they were now considered “the people of God” (2:10). Clearly Peter carefully included both Jewish and Gentile Christians in his letter of encouragement to the churches of Asia Minor.⁸⁹

Date: A.D. 63-64

Church tradition connects Peter in the latter part of his life with the city of Rome. If the reference to Babylon in 5:13 is a cryptic reference to Rome, this letter was written while Peter was in Rome during the last decade of his life about A.D. 63, just before the outbreak of Nero’s persecution in A.D. 64. Peter regards the state in a harmonious or perhaps conciliatory manner (see 1 Pet. 2:13-17) which would have been more difficult (but not impossible) at a later date under the outbreak of Nero’s persecution.

Theme and Purpose:

While 1 Peter touches on various doctrines and has much to say about Christian life and Christian responsibilities, the theme and purpose of 1 Peter centers around the problem of suffering—particularly suffering in the form of persecution for one’s faith. It has been described as a manual or handbook showing Christians how they are to live as temporary resident and ambassadors of Christ in an alien and hostile world (1:1, 13-21; 2:11-12; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 13, 15, 16, 19).

There are several specific purposes in this book. It is designed to provide direction for believers under persecution (1) by focusing on the coming revelation of Christ and its deliverance (1:3-12), (2) by following Christ as their perfect example in suffering (2:21f.), and (3) by living in the world in accordance with their calling as a special people of God by maintaining a good report with the Gentile world (2:4-12ff.; 4:1ff.). Other purposes include demonstrating the vital link between doctrine and practice (5:12) and encouraging godly leadership and shepherding the flock of God (5:1f.), which is a vital element in the church’s ability to function effectively in a hostile world.

Key Word:

The key word and concept is obviously “suffering for Christ.” Some form of the word “suffer” occurs some sixteen times in the book. Closely associated with this as a great source of hope and comfort is the concept of the coming revelation and glory of Christ that will be revealed or brought to believers with its accompanying deliverance or ultimate salvation (see 1:5, 7, 12, 13; 4:13; 5:1, 10-11).

Key Verses:

1:3-7. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1:4 that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, 1:5 who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1:6 This brings you great joy, although you may have to suffer for a short time in various trials. 1:7 Such trials show the proven character of your faith, which is much more valuable than gold—gold that is tested by fire, even though it is passing away—and will bring praise and glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
1:14-21. Like obedient children, do not comply with the evil urges you used to follow in your ignorance, 1:15 but, like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all of your conduct, 1:16 for it is written, “You shall be holy, because I am holy.” 1:17 And if you address as Father the one who impartially judges according to each one’s work, live out the time of your temporary residence here in reverence. 1:18 You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors, you were ransomed—not by perishable things like silver or gold, 1:19 but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, Christ. 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake. 1:21 Through him you now trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
3:15-17. But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. 3:16 Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you. 3:17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it, than for doing evil.
4:12-13. Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you. 4:13 But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad.

Key Chapter:

Perhaps because of its extended direction for how to handle persecution, chapter four is the key chapter of 1 Peter.

Christ as Seen in 1 Peter:

The book is loaded with the person and work of Christ. Through the resurrection of Christ, Christians have “a living hope” and “an imperishable inheritance” (1:3-4). In several places, Peter speaks of the coming glory and revelation of Christ (1:7, 13; 4:13; 5:1). He also speaks (1) of the person and work of Christ as God’s Lamb who redeemed us by bearing our sins on the cross (1:18-19; 2:24), (2) of Christ as our perfect example in suffering (2:21f.), and (3) of Christ as the Chief shepherd and Guardian of believers (2:25; 5:4).

Outline:

First Peter can be easily divided into four sections: (1) the Salvation of Believers (1:1-12), (2) the Sanctification of Believers (1:13-2:12), (3) the Submission of Believers (2:13-3:12), and the Suffering of Believers (3:13-5:14).

I. The Salvation of Believers (1:1-12)

A. Salutation (1:1-2)

B. Future (Living) Hope and Present Trials (1:3-9)

C. Present Salvation and Past Revelation (1:10-12)

II. The Sanctification of Believers (1:13-2:12)

A. The Call to Holiness (1:13-21)

B. The Call to Love One Another Fervently (1:22-25)

C. The Call to Desire the Pure Milk of the Word (2:1-3)

D. The Call to Offer Up Spiritual Sacrifices (2:4-10)

E. The Call to Abstain From Fleshly Desires (2:11-12)

III. The Submission of Believers (2:13-3:12)

A. Submission to Government (2:13-17)

B. Submission in Business (2:18-25)

C. Submission in Marriage (3:1-8)

D. Submission in All Areas of Life (3:9-12)

IV. The Suffering of Believers (3:13-5:14)

A. Conduct Needed in Suffering (3:13-17)

B. Christ’s Example for Suffering (3:18-4:6)

C. Commands for Suffering (4:7-19)

D. Custodians (Shepherds) in Suffering (5:1-9)

E. Conclusion or Benediction (5:10-14)

Second Peter

Author and Title:

Regarding the authorship of this epistle, it is the most disputed epistle of the New Testament. However, not only does the author clearly identify himself as Simon Peter (1:1), but a number of other internal evidences point to the apostle Peter as the author. In a very personal section, almost as the final testament of a dying father, he uses the first person singular referring to himself (1:14), declares himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration (cf. 1:16-18 with Matt. 17:1-5), asserts this letter is his second one to his readers (3:1), and shows his personal acquaintance with the apostle Paul whom he calls, “our dear brother” (3:15). Regarding Peter’s authorship, Ryrie writes:

Many have suggested that someone other than Peter wrote this letter after A.D. 80 because of (1) differences in style, (2) its supposed dependence on Jude, and (3) the mention of Paul’s letters having been collected (2 Pet. 3:16). However, using a different scribe or no scribe would also have resulted in stylistic changes; there is no reason why Peter should not have borrowed from Jude, though it is more likely that Jude was written later than 2 Peter; and 3:16 does not necessarily refer to all of Paul’s letters but only those written up to that time. Furthermore, similarities between 1 and 2 Peter point to the same author, and its acceptance in the canon demands apostolic authority behind it. Assuming Petrine authorship, the letter was written just before his martyrdom in A.D. 67 and most likely from Rome.⁹⁰

Writing in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Kenneth Gangel writes:

In the fourth century the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter was strongly affirmed. Two of the great theologians of the early church, Athanasius and Augustine, considered 2 Peter as canonical. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 372) included the epistle in the canon of Scripture. Jerome placed 2 Peter in the Latin Vulgate (ca. A.D. 404). Also the great third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) recognized the intrinsic authority and worth of 2 Peter and formally affirmed that it was written by the apostle Peter.

Though 2 Peter is the least attested book in the New Testament, its external support far surpasses that of many of the other Bible books. The absence of early church tradition supporting 2 Peter certainly could have been due to the letter’s brevity and the lack of communication among Christians during times of heavy persecution. Consequently the silence of the second century and the caution of the third century posed no insurmountable problems for the careful scholarship of the canonical councils of the fourth century.⁹¹

This epistle is titled Petrou B, “Second Peter,” to distinguish it from the first letter written by Peter.

Recipients:

This is the second of two letters Peter wrote to this group of believers (see 3:1) as a kind of final testament, warning, and “last day” letter (1:14; 2:1f.; 3:3), written at the close of the apostle’s career (1:12-14). He was writing to Christians of like precious faith, undoubtedly, to Jewish and Gentile churches of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1).

Date: A.D. 67-68

As a kind of farewell letter warning of dangerous clouds on the horizon, Peter wrote at the end of his career. According to the early church historian, Eusebius, Peter was martyred during Nero’s persecutions (about A.D. 67–68). The letter was most likely written one of these years.

Theme and Purpose:

As the apostle Paul warned of the coming dangers of apostasy in the later years of his life and ministry (2 Timothy), so Peter also warned of the ever rising dangers of false teachers as was predicted by the prophets, by the Lord Himself, and His apostles (2:1; 3:1-3). The purpose of this short letter is found in this very issue, this rise of false teachers. Thus, the purpose is one of warning against these dangers facing the church.

Seeing that God has provided all that is needed for life and godliness (1:3), 1 Peter is a passionate plea for his audience to grow and mature in Christ, to be neither idle nor unfruitful (1:8), and with this as a foundation, to guard against the rising tide of false teachers. This was precipitated by the fact that Peter knew his time on earth was short (1:13-15) and that the body of Christ faced immediate danger (2:1-3). Thus, Peter desired to refresh their memories and stir their thinking (1:13; 3:1-2) so that they might have his teaching firmly in mind (1:15). To do this, he carefully described what mature believers should look like, encouraging them to grow in grace and knowledge of the Savior (cf. 1:2-11; 3:18). As a further foundation for handling false teachers, he reminded them of the nature of God’s Word as their sure foundation (1:12-21) and then warned against sure coming dangers of false teachers whom he also carefully described along with their sure judgment (chap. 2). Finally, he encouraged his readers with the certainty of Christ’s return (3:1-16). With this final emphasis on the return of the Lord, Peter gave a final challenge. “Therefore, dear friends, since you are waiting for these things, strive to be found at peace, without spot or blemish, when you come into his presence… Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men, and fall from your firm grasp on the truth. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the honor both now and on that eternal day” (3:14, 17-18).

Key Word:

The key word or concept of 2 Peter is that of warning against false prophets or teachers and mockers with false words (2:1-3; 3:3).

Key Verses:

1:3. I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence.
1:20-21. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
3:8-11. Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day. 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes, the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare. 3:11 Since all these things are to melt away in this manner, what sort of people must we be, conducting our lives in holiness and godliness,

Key Chapters:

Chapter 1 is the key chapter of 2 Peter because in it, we are given one of the clearest passages on the nature of the inspiration of the Bible. While 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly declares the fact of inspiration, 2 Peter 1:19-21 describes the how of inspiration and more. It shows us that (1) the Scripture is absolutely reliable, a sure word of prophecy, (2) that no prophecy of Scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, i.e., he did not originate it himself, but rather (3) it was the Holy Spirit Himself who is the source of the Scripture ensuring its accuracy. See the footnote taken from the NET Bible.⁹²

Christ as Seen in 2 Peter:

Peter speaks of Christ as the source of life and godliness, and, in keeping with the focus, he speaks of Christ as “Lord and Savior” four times, and speaks of Him as “Lord” fourteen times. In addition, he refers to the glorious transfiguration on the holy mountain and looks forward to the Savior’s second coming or parousia. At this time the whole world will see that which Peter and the other two disciples were privileged to see on that holy mountain.

Outline:

I. Greetings (1:1-2)

II. The Development or Cultivation of Christian Character (1:3-21)

A. The Growth of Faith (1:3-11)

B. The Grounds of Faith (1:12-21)

III. The Denouncement or Condemnation of False Teachers (2:1-22)

A. Their Danger and Conduct (2:1-3)

B. Their Destruction or Condemnation (2:4-9)

C. Their Description and Characteristics (2:10-22)

IV. The Design and Confidence for the Future (3:1-18)

A. The Derision of the False Teachers (3:1-7)

B. The Delay of the Day of the Lord (3:8-9)

C. The Dissolution Following the Day of the Lord (3:10-13)

D. The Diligence Needed in View of the Dangers (3:14-18)

First John

Author and Title:

While the author’s name is not found in the letter, it has traditionally been ascribed to John the apostle. Various references by early Christian writers including Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian spoke of John as the author of this epistle. From the standpoint of internal evidence, there are some stylistic differences from the gospel of John, but these can be attributed to the differences between an epistle and a gospel. Further, many similarities exist by way of key words (abide or remain) or contrasting figures like righteousness and sin, light and darkness, life and death, love and hate, and truth and error. In addition, the writer was one of the original witnesses of the Savior who knew Him intimately (1:1-5). Then there are many similar expressions and phrases: compare 1 John 1:1 with John 1:1, 14; 1:4 with John 16:24; 1:6-7 with John 3:19-21; and 4:9 with John 1:14, 18; 3:36. There are no good reasons why this book should not be attributed to the apostle John.

Though it is generally agreed that the same person wrote the gospel of John and these three epistles, some feel that they were not written (as traditionally held) by John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, but by another John (the elder or presbyter, 2 John 1; 3 John 1). It is argued that (1) an uneducated man (Acts 4:13) could not have written something so profound as this gospel; (2) a fisherman’s son would not have known the high priest as did John the apostle; and (3) an apostle would not have called himself an elder. But “uneducated” did not mean illiterate, only without formal training in the rabbinic schools; some fishermen were well-to-do (cf. Mark 1:20); and Peter, though an apostle, called himself an elder (1 Peter 5:1). Further, if John the elder is the “beloved disciple” and the author of the gospel, why did he not mention John the son of Zebedee, an important figure in the life of Christ, in that gospel? Every evidence points to John the elder being the same as John the apostle and the author of this letter.⁹³

Recipients:

All the way through the epistle there are verses that indicate John was writing to believers (2:1, 12-14, 19; 3:1; 5:13), but John nowhere indicates who they were or where they lived. This fact may suggest it was a circular letter to be circulated among several churches, perhaps around the city of Ephesus since early Christian writers placed John at Ephesus in his later years.

The earliest confirmed use of 1 John was in the province of Asia (in modern Turkey), where Ephesus was located. Clement of Alexandria indicates that John ministered in the various churches scattered throughout that province. It may be assumed, therefore, that 1 John was sent to the churches of the province of Asia.⁹⁴

Date: A.D. 85-90

It is difficult to precisely date this and the other epistles of John, but since many of the themes and words are so similar to the gospel of John, it is reasonable to assume it was written after the gospel. It was undoubtedly written after the gospel but before the persecutions of Domitian in A.D. 95. Therefore, a reasonable date is somewhere between A.D. 85-90.

Theme and Purpose:

The theme of the book is fellowship with God through the Lord Jesus (1:3-7). In view of the heresy facing these believers, perhaps an early form of gnosticism, John wrote to define the nature of fellowship with God whom he describes as light, love, and life. God is light (1:5), God is love (4:8, 16), and God is life (see 1:1-2; 5:11-13). To walk in fellowship with God, then, means to walk in the light which leads to experiencing His life, His love for others, and His righteousness. The book, then, gives a number of tests or proofs of fellowship, though some see these as tests of salvation. But in keeping with the theme, the teaching of the false teachers, and the nature of his audience as believers, it is best to view these as tests or proofs of fellowship, tests of abiding and knowing the Savior in an intimate relationship that experiences the transforming life of the Savior in believers.

The exact form of the heresy facing these Christians is difficult to determine, but from the content of 1 John it involved denial of the reality of the incarnation and a claim that sinful behavior did not hinder fellowship with God. Thus, John wrote to his “little children” (2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 5:21) for at least five reasons: (1) to promote true fellowship (1:3f.), (2) to experience full joy (1:4), (3) to promote holiness through true fellowship (1:6-2:2), (4) to prevent and guard against heresy (2:18-27), and (5) to give assurance (5:11-13).

Key Words:

The key concept is fellowship as expressed in the terms fellowship (1:3, 6, 7), and abide, abiding, etc. (2:6, 10, 14, 17, 27, 28; 3:6, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24; 4:12, 13, 15, 16). Other key words are righteous, righteousness, light, darkness, and sin and lawlessness.

Key Verses:

1:5-2:2. Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. 1:7 But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 1:8 If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1:9 But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness. 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. 2:1 (My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One; 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.
5:11-13. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son does not have this eternal life. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Key Chapter:

Surely, one of the key passages in 1 John, and even in the New Testament, is chapter 1 because of its truth regarding sin, even in the life of the Christian. To walk in the light means an honest acknowledgment of the problem of sin. Rather than the denial of sin, this chapter shows us the need for the confession of the principle of sin (1:8), confession of particular or personal sins (1:9), and confession of the practice of sin (1:10).

Christ as Seen in 1 John:

This book focuses on the present ministry of the Savior in the life of believers and anticipates His coming again. His blood continually cleanses the believer from all sin (1:7) and from personal sins and all unrighteousness upon confession of sin (1:9). Indeed, it declares that Christ is our righteous Advocate before the Father (2:1) and the propitiation or atoning sacrifice not only for believers, but for all the world (2:2), that Jesus is the Christ who has come in the flesh (2:22; 4:2-3), that He came by water and by blood, a reference to His baptism and the cross (5:6), and that He is coming again when we shall see Him and be like Him (2:28-3:3).

Outline:

I. Introduction and Purpose of the Letter (1:1-4)

II. Conditions Vital for Fellowship (1:5-2:2)

A. Walking in the Light (1:5-7)

B. Confession of Sin (1:8-2:2)

III. Conduct Consistent With Fellowship (2:3-27)

A. The Character of Fellowship—Being Like Christ (2:3-11)

B. The Commandment of Fellowship—Loving Not the World (2:12-17)

C. The Cautions for Fellowship—Guarding Against Antichrist (2:18-27)

IV. Characteristics of Fellowship (2:28-5:3)

A. Purity in View of Our Prospect (2:28-3:3)

B. Practice of Righteousness in View of Christ’s Death (3:4-24)

C. Proving (Testing) the Spirits (4:1-6)

D. Pattern of Fellowship, Loving as Christ Loved (4:7-5:3)

V. Consequences of Fellowship (5:4-21)

A. Victory Over the World (5:4-5)

B. Verification of Christ’s Credentials (5:6-12)

C. Verification (Assurance) of the Believer’s Salvation (5:13)

D. Verification of Answered Prayer (5:14-17)

E. Victory from Habitual Sin (5:18-21)

Second John

Author and Title:

Though not stated, the author is undoubtedly John the apostle. He simply refers to himself as “the elder” (presbuteros, “elder, old man”), which is in keeping with the reticence of the author of both the Gospel of John and 1 John to identify himself. This is the same self-designation used by the author of 3 John. That he identifies himself as simply “the elder’ suggests that he was well known and established to those he was writing to. This was an official title for the office of an elder, but it is perhaps more likely that he was using it as an affectionate designation by which he was well known to his readers.

The similarities in style between this epistle and 1 John and the Gospel of John suggest that the same person wrote all three books. A number of passages show the similarities: compare 2 John 5 with 1 John 2:7 and John 13:34-35; 2 John 6 with 1 John 5:3 and John 14:23; 2 John 7 with 1 John 4:2-3; and 2 John 12 with 1 John 1:4 and John 15:11.

Although John himself might send a shorter personal letter resembling a longer one he had previously written, it is unlikely that a forger would try to produce such a short document that added so little to the case found in 1 John. Further, a later forgery of 2 John (or 3 John) would have drained it of its authority for the readers, since the contents of 2 and 3 John indicate that they knew the writer personally.⁹⁵

Since the book has been traditionally tied to the apostle John as the author, it has been titled in the Greek text as Ioannou B, Second of John.

Recipients:

The letter is addressed “to the elect lady and her children” (v. 1; cf. vv. 4-5).

This phrase may refer to an individual or to a church (or the church at large). Some have suggested that the addressee is a Christian lady named “Electa,” but the same word in v. 13 is clearly an adjective, not a proper name. Others see the letter addressed to a Christian lady named “Kyria” (first proposed by Athanasius) or to an unnamed Christian lady. The internal evidence of 2 John clearly supports a collective reference, however. In v. 6 the addressee is mentioned using second person plural, and this is repeated in vv. 8, 10, and 12. Only in v. 13 does the singular reappear. The uses in vv. 1 and 13 are most likely collective. Some have seen a reference to the church at large, but v. 13, referring to “the children of your elect sister” is hard to understand if the universal church is in view. Thus the most probable explanation is that the “elect lady” is a particular local church at some distance from where the author is located.

sn 2 John is being written to warn a “sister” church some distance away, referred to as an elect lady, of the missionary efforts of the secessionist false teachers (discussed in 1 John) and the dangers of welcoming them whenever they arrive.⁹⁶

Date: A.D. 85-90

It is difficult to date the letter, but the circumstances and subjects in the letter suggest it was probably written about the same time as 1 John (A.D. 85-90). The above similarities indicate this as well (see the date as discussed in 1 John above).

Theme and Purpose:

The theme of 2 John is the apostle’s concern that his readers continue to walk in the truth of apostolic doctrine and in accordance with the commandments (vv. 4-6). Because “many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh” (v. 7), John was writing to protect them from the evil deception of those who refused to remain in the teaching of Christ, but were running beyond and away from the truth (v. 9). In keeping with this, several purposes are seen: (1) He wrote to keep his readers from losing the things they had together worked for, including a full reward (v. 9), and (2) to give them clear instructions against receiving these false teachers into their homes or house churches and giving them a Christian greeting. This undoubtedly referred to recognizing them as teachers of the truth in their home churches. John was not telling them to be rude or refuse to witness to them.

Key Words:

The key words are “truth” (nine times), and “commandment” (14 times).

Key Verses:

6-11. (Now this is love: that we walk according to his commandments.) This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning; thus you should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the Deceiver and the Antichrist! 8 Watch out, so that you do not lose the things we have worked for, but receive a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching about Christ does not have God. The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, 11 because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.

Key Chapters:

As there is only one chapter to 2 John, this focus is not applicable.

Christ as Seen in 2 John:

Again, as in 1 John, 2 John is concerned with protecting the biblical doctrine of the incarnation. He wrote to refute the error that denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. In fact, the statement in verse 7 regarding the denial that “Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh” may even refer to the incarnation in a threefold way. In contrast to 1 John 4:2 where he used the perfect participle, “has come in the flesh” (eleluthota), here John used the present participle (erchomenon), “is coming” or “is come in the flesh.” Since the present participle may simply emphasize the results and is sometimes translated like a present, there may be no distinction here, but perhaps John meant to broaden the focus on the significance of the incarnation.

This present tense participle seems to include the past coming of Christ in flesh at the Incarnation, the present continuance of His risen humanity, as well as His future coming to earth. By contrast, the perfect tense participle in 1 John 4:2 emphasizes only His incarnation.⁹⁷

Outline:

I. Prologue and Greeting (1:1-3)

II. Commendation for Walking in the Truth (1:4)

III. Commandment to Continue to Love One Another (1:5-6)

IV. Cautions and Instructions Against False Teachers (1:7-11)

V. Concluding Remarks and Final Greetings (1:12-13)

Third John

Author and Title:

The apostle John is the author of this epistle as with 1 and 2 John. In both 2 and 3 John the author identifies himself as “the elder.” Also, note the similarities found in both epistles: “love in the truth” (v. 1 of both letters) and “walking in the truth” (v. 4 of both letters). The style of both epistles are clearly the same, and efforts to deny that John is the author of all three epistles has no real support or evidence.

The ancient opinion that the Apostle John wrote this letter, as well as the other two, may be readily accepted. The arguments that support apostolic authorship of 1 John carry over to this tiny epistle by virtue of the clear stylistic ties. Moreover, the self-confident authority of the writer of 3 John (cf. v. 10) also befits an apostle.⁹⁸

Recipients:

This is clearly the most personal letter of John. It is addressed to a man John called “the beloved Gaius” (v. 1) regarding ecclesiastical problems Gaius was facing. The recipient is simply identified no further than by the above description which suggests he was well known by those of the churches of Asia Minor where John served for the last years of his life. Gaius is a familiar name in the New Testament. It appears in Romans 16:23 (a Gaius of Corinth), Acts 19:29 (a Gaius of Macedonia) and Acts 20:4 (a Gaius of Derbe).

Date: A.D. 85-90

Again, the similarities between 1 and 2 John suggest a similar date of somewhere between A.D. 85-90.

Theme and Purpose:

John writes Gaius regarding the issue of hospitality and physical support to itinerate Christian workers (missionaries), especially when they were strangers. The theme centers around the contrast between the ministry of Gaius and his generous demonstration of Christian love as one walking in the truth in contrast to the behavior of the selfishness of Diotrephes who, rather than walking in the truth, rejected what John had said and was seeking personal preeminence (v. 9).

Several distinct purposes emerge in this epistle: (1) to commend Gaius (vv. 1-6a), (2) to instruct and encourage the continuation of his support for the Christian workers John had evidently sent (vv. 6b-8), (3) to rebuke Diotrephes for his self-centered behavior (vv. 9-11), (4) to give instruction for Demetrius (v. 12), and (5) to inform Gaius of John’s desire and intention to visit and deal with the difficulties (vv. 10a, 13-14).

Key Word:

While no one word stands out as in 2 John by way of repetition, the key idea is faithful ministry of selfless service to others as fellow workers in the truth (vv. 5-8).

Key Verses:

6-8. They have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. 7 For they have gone forth on behalf of ‘The Name,’ accepting nothing from the pagans. 8 Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we become coworkers in cooperation with the truth.
11. Dear friends, do not imitate what is bad but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does what is bad has not seen God.

Key Chapters:

As in 2 John this is not applicable with only one chapter.

Christ as Seen in 3 John:

While the name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned directly, He is referred to in the statement, “For they have gone forth on behalf of ‘The Name.’” This is undoubtedly a reference to ministry on behalf of the Lord Jesus (see Acts 5:40-41 where we have the identical Greek construction in v. 41). Paul uses a similar phrase in Romans 1:5, and in 1 John 2:12 the author wrote, “your sins are forgiven on account of His (Christ’s) name.” John’s Gospel also makes reference to believing “in the name of Jesus” (John 1:12, 3:18).

Outline:

I. Greeting or Introduction (1)

II. Commendation of Gaius (2-8)

A. His Godliness (2-4)

B. His Generosity (5-8)

III. Condemnation of Diotrephes (9-11)

A. His Selfish Ambition (9)

B. His Selfish Activities (10-11)

IV. Commendation of Demetrius (12)

V. Concluding Remarks (13-14)

Jude

Author and Title:

The author identifies himself as Jude (v. 1). The Greek is literally, Judas. Traditionally, English versions have used Jude to distinguish him from Judas who betrayed Jesus. Further, he identifies himself as the brother of James and bond-servant (Greek, doulos) of Jesus Christ. Jude is listed as the half-brother of Jesus in Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3. The NET Bible has this helpful note here:

Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: since Jude was a common name in the first century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.⁹⁹

The title in the Greek text is Iouda, an indeclinable form used for the Hebrew Judah and the Greek Judas.

Recipients:

Jude seems to write to no specific group of people. Rather the letter is simply addressed “to those who are called, wrapped in the love of God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (v. 1) and then later he addresses them as “beloved” or “dear friends” (v. 3).

Date: A.D. 70-80

Though the subject matter is very similar to 2 Peter, one of the chief differences between Jude and 2 Peter is that while Peter warned that “there shall be false teachers” (2:1), Jude states that “there are certain men who have secretly slipped in among you” (v. 4). Since 2 Peter anticipates the problem and Jude speaks of it as present, apparently Jude was written some time later than 2 Peter. If 2 Peter is dated about A.D. 66, then Jude might be placed around A.D. 70-80.

Theme and Purpose:

Jude intended to write about the common salvation, but because of the inroads of heresy and the danger threatening the church, he was compelled to write to encourage believers to contend earnestly for the faith against false teachings that were secretly being introduced in the churches. Evidently, definite advances were being made by an incipient form of Gnosticism—not ascetic, like that attacked by Paul in Colossians, but an antinomian form.

The Gnostics viewed everything material as evil and everything spiritual as good. They therefore cultivated their “spiritual” lives and allowed their flesh to do anything it liked, with the result that they were guilty of all kinds of lawlessness.¹⁰⁰

From this, two major purposes can be seen in Jude: (1) To condemn the practices of the ungodly libertines who were infesting the churches and corrupting believers, and (2) counsel believers to stand fast, continue to grow in faith while contending for the apostolic truth that had been handed down to the church.

Key Word:

The key idea or word is “contend for the faith.”

Key Verses:

3. Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
24. Now to the one who is able to keep you from falling, and to cause you to stand, rejoicing, without blemish before his glorious presence.

Key Chapters:

As with 2 and 3 John, since this book has only one chapter, this is not applicable.

Christ as Seen in Jude:

Jude focuses our attention on the believer’s security in Christ (v. 24), on the eternal life He gives (v. 21), and on His sure coming again (v. 21). It is Jesus Christ our Lord who gives us access into God’s presence (v. 25).

Outline:

I. Greetings and Purpose (1-4)

II. Description and Exposure of False Teachers (5-16)

A. Their Past Judgment (5-7)

B. Their Present Characteristics (8-13)

C. Their Future Judgment (14-16)

III. Defense and Exhortation to Believers (17-23)

IV. Benediction (24-25)

73 Thiessen, p. 271.

74 Wilkinson/Boa, p. 450.

75 Ryrie, p. 1943.

76 Wilkinson/Boa, p. 454.

77 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

78 Ryrie, p. 1966.

79 Zane Hodges, The Epistle of James: Proven Character Through Testing, Grace Evangelical Society, Irving, TX, 1994, p. 15.

80 Wilkinson/Boa, p. 465.

81 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

82 Wilkinson/Boa, p. 465.

83 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

84 Ryrie, p. 1966.

85 I have chosen to use Ron Blue's outline here from The Bible Knowledge Commentary. It is one of the most accurate and innovative outlines I have seen on the book of James. Ron was a classmate at Dallas Seminary and this is typical of his excellent work.

86 The NIV Study Bible Notes, Zondervan NIV Electronic Library.

87 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

88 Footnote from the NET Bible, The Biblical Studies Press.

89 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

90 Ryrie, p. 1984.

91 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

92 tn Verse 20 is variously interpreted. There are three key terms here that help decide both the interpretation and the translation. As well, the relation to v. 21 informs the meaning of this verse. (1) The term “comes about” (givnetai [ginetai]) is often translated “is a matter” as in “is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” But the progressive force for this verb is far more common. (2) The adjective ijdiva" (idias) has been understood to mean (a) one’s own (i.e., the reader’s own), (b) its own (i.e., the particular prophecy’s own), or (c) the prophet’s own. Catholic scholarship has tended to see the reference to the reader (in the sense that no individual reader can understand scripture, but needs the interpretations handed down by the Church), while older Protestant scholarship has tended to see the reference to the individual passage being prophesied (and hence the Reformation doctrine of analogia fidei [analogy of faith], or scripture interpreting scripture). But neither of these views satisfactorily addresses the relationship of v. 20 to v. 21, nor do they do full justice to the meaning of givnetai. (3) The meaning of ejpivlusi" (epilusis) is difficult to determine, since it is a biblical hapax legomenon. Though it is sometimes used in the sense of interpretation in extra-biblical Greek, this is by no means a necessary sense. The basic idea of the word is unfolding, which can either indicate an explanation or a creation. It sometimes has the force of solution or even spell, both of which meanings could easily accommodate a prophetic utterance of some sort. Further, even the meaning explanation or interpretation easily fits a prophetic utterance, for prophets often, if not usually, explained visions and dreams. There is no instance of this word referring to the interpretation of scripture, however, suggesting that if interpretation is the meaning, it is the prophet’s interpretation of his own vision. (4) The gavr (gar) at the beginning of v. 21 gives the basis for the truth of the proposition in v. 20. The connection that makes the most satisfactory sense is that prophets did not invent their own prophecies (v. 20), for their impulse for prophesying came from God (v. 21).

sn No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination. 2 Pet 1:20-21, then, form an inclusio with v. 16: the Christian’s faith and hope is not based on cleverly concocted fables, but is based on the sure Word of God—one which the prophets, prompted by the Spirit of God, spoke. Peter’s point is the same as is found elsewhere in the NT, i.e., that human prophets did not originate the message, but they did convey it, using their own personalities in the process.

93 Ryrie, p. 1990.

94 NIV Study Bible, electronic Library.

95 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, 1997, c 1993, electronic media, Logos Library System.

96 Translators note, The NET Bible, The Biblical Studies Press, 1998, electronic media, Logos Library System.

97 Ryrie, p. 2000.

98 Walvoord/Zuck, electronic media.

99 NET Bible, electronic media.

100 Ryrie, p. 2005.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines, Canon

The Circle of Faith

Related Media

1 John 5:1-5

Introductory Thoughts

John combines the three tests (correct doctrine, correct actions, correct love)
What we see here is a circle of Truth, tied together with the New Birth, the action of God in salvation.

1. Faith: The Cause and the Effect—1 John 5:1a “…Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,…”

a. Language notes

(1) “…believes…” is a present participle—”…the one believing…”

(2) “…is…” is present tense

(3) “…born of God…” is perfect passive

b. Faith—of the strongest kind (ATR). This term indicates a person sold out to the Truth—they are characterized as “…one who is believing…”

c. The Faith—the doctrine of Who Jesus Is

(1) The Gospel is about the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, intercession, and return of Christ.

(2) As John has emphasized again and again, that is the heart and soul of Christian teaching.

d. The cause—the New Birth

(1) The perfect tense identifies the new birth as happening in the past, being a culminating event, the effects of which have lasted until the present.

(2) The passive indicates that the action comes from outside—we do not beget ourselves into the Christian life. “You had nothing more to do with your second birth than you did with your first…” (Rev. Ronnie Stinson).

James 1:18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again (passive), he cannot see the kingdom of God.”“

(3) Since faith is in the present tense, that makes the cause of believing to be the New Birth, not the other way around.

(4) “…The Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing…” (A.T. Robertson)

e. The Effect—the continuing and strong faith of the true believer.

2. The Test of Love— “…and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him…”

a. A new way of stating the test—you love your family!

(1) We have been adopted into the family of God—Gal 4, Rom 8

(2) All believers are our brothers

(3) We should love our family!

1 Th 4:9 “But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;”

1 Pet 1:22 “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,”

John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:”

Rom 8:15 “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”“

2 Cor 6:18 ““I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty.”“

Gal 3:26 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Gal 4:5-6 “to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”“

Eph 2:19 “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,”

Eph 3:15 “from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,”

Heb 2:11 “For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,”

3. The Test of Conduct—1 John 5:2 “…By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

a. Language

(1) “…we know…” —> ginwskomen , experiential knowledge, present tense

(2) “…we love God and keep His commandments…” “love” and “keep” are present tense

b. Exposition: —>1 John 5:2 “…By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments

(1) First, this is a great corrective to those who misconstrue what love is.

(2) Love is not being friendly

(3) Love is not being affirming and accepting, no matter what

(4) Love is not avoiding all offense

(5) Love is not soft-pedaling the truth

(6) We only love the brethren in truth when we love God and keep His commandments

c. Exposition —> “… 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments…”

(1) This IS the love of God, love for God, love with God as the object of the love—Love for God is seen in action, in deeds, particularly in self-sacrificing deeds—Jn 3:16-18

(2) If we love God, then we will live a life consistent with that possession.

(3) We do not have the quantity, the amount of love that God has, and we will not be 100% consistent in our love, but if we are His, the tenor of our life will be that we demonstrate our love for God by being obedient to Him.

c. The Commandments of God are Good—”…And His commandments are not burdensome…”

(1) Language—”burdensome” means “heavy and oppressive…”

(2) The OT Law was good, and the moral and ethical requirements of the Law have been reiterated in the New Testament—but the Law was never a way of salvation, and the commandments of the New Covenant are also not a way of salvation!

Psa 19:7 “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;”

Rom 7:12-14 “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.”

1 Tim 1:8-11 “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”

(3) The problem was that the Pharisees, scribes, and Saducees added even more burdens with their man-made interpretations and man-made laws.

Mat 23:1-4 “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 “For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”

(4) The Commandments of Christ are not burdensome—

Mat 11:28-30 ““Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”“

4. Victory in Jesus—1 John 5:4 “…For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world; our faith…”

a. Language

(1) Born of God—perfect passive participle

(2) Overcomes— , “…to conquer, to gain a victory…” Rogers and Rogers. It is present tense.

(3) Victory, and overcome are from the same root.

(4) “Has overcome…” —>Overcame—aorist participle

b. Exposition—Faith IS the victory

(1) Whatever—this applies to every believer, so this is not something that depends on maturity or discipleship—it is the possession of all the saved

(2) Born of God—those who have been called to salvation, who have experienced the New Birth, these are the ones who experience victory.

(3) Overcomes—we are more than conquerors (Rom 8:37) through Christ

(4) The World—the temptations, beliefs, and ways of the lost world—all under the “god of this world,” the “ruler of this world.” Satan.

(5) Overcame —> At a point in time

(6) Our faith—

(a) In the sense of history—victory came at a point in time, with the person and work of Christ

(b) In the sense of personal victory, victory came at the time we believed.

5. The Test of Doctrine—1 John 5:5 “…Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?…”

a. The most important victory is the victory of salvation

b. And, what a claim—”…the daring of this first-century claim that the victory belongs not to Rome, then reigning supreme, but to Christ and to the humble believer in Christ…” (Stott)

c. Look at the forces arrayed against the faithful

(1) The World, with its riches, seductions, and power.

(2) Satan, with his wiles

(3) The believer’s own remaining sin, subject to temptation and sifting.

(4) These seem to be such powerful forces.

d. But these powers are overcome with the most simple and humble of divine-human transactions—faith in the risen Son of God!

Related Topics: Soteriology (Salvation), Faith

The Apostle Peter on Civil Obedience: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 2:13-17

Related Media

Introduction

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study is very modest. It seeks to present an interpretation of Peter's injunctions to the churches mentioned in 1 Peter 1:1 concerning their relation to the state and then to make a comparison with Paul's commands concerning the state in 1 Peter 2:13-17. The question that the study seeks to answer concerns the relation of the two passages, one to the other. Does Peter demonstrate literary dependence upon Paul? Or, are they drawing from a common stock of Christian paraenetic material? If so, what is the origin of this material?

An Overview of the Study

The paper is composed of several parts. First, we will consider the historical background to 1 Peter. Three areas will be surveyed in an attempt to explicate the historical background: 1) the question of the authorship will be examined in terms of internal and external evidence; 2) the nature of the readership and 3) a statement as to the most likely historical situation. Second, we will look at the literary setting of the passage and its relation to the argument of the book. Third, an outline of the book as well as a grammatical layout and translation of the passage will be offered taking into consideration any textual problems that might arise. Fourth, the paper will present a detailed exegesis of the passage. Fifth, and final, 1 Peter 2:13-17 will be compared with Romans 13:1-7 in an attempt to determine the relation of the two passages, one to the other.

An Exegesis of 1 Peter 2:13-17

Preliminary Matters

The Historical Setting of the Passage

Authorship

Since this paper forms part of a larger work which will include a comparison of Paul and Peter, it is necessary to spend some time discussing the issue of the authorship of 1 Peter. There is reasonable evidence for the view that Peter wrote it (cf. 1 Peter 5:12) and it is not likely that existing evidence will ever seriously rule out such a conclusion. We turn now to the discussion in some detail.

"The authorship of 1 Peter has been a matter of dispute since the beginning of critical scholarship."¹ Several scholars for various reasons have concluded that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous writing.² First we will examine evidence for Petrine authorship and second, we will examine and respond to criticisms raised against the traditional view.

Arguments for Petrine authorship

Internal.

The only explicit statement in 1 Peter that claims Petrine authorship is in 1:1. The text says, Pevtro" ajpovstolo" =Ihsou' Cristou'. This was the common way the NT writers introduced their letters (cf. Paul, James, John, except Hebrews). From this introduction alone (and the fact that the reading is solid) one must conclude, as Grudem says, that "from the earliest times [that] the letter circulated in the church, it was known and accepted as a letter written by Peter."³

Selwyn has argued that 1 Peter 5:1 contributes further evidence for Petrine authorship.⁴ The text reads Presbutevrou" ou ejn uJmi'n parakalw' oJ sumpresbuvtero" kaiV mavrtu" tw'n tou' Cristou' paqhmavtwn, oJ kaiV th'" mellouvsh" ajpokaluvptesqai dovxh" koinwno.v. The argument Selwyn advances is that the term marvtu" means "eye-witness," a qualification that lies at the essence of the Apostolic office and function. Selwyn recognizes the problem of the lack of reference to the resurrection, but says that the hardship of the readers and the focus on future glory are enough to balance the earthly sufferings.⁵ There are several problems with this view, which in the end, tends to rule the verse out in terms of explicit support for Petrine authorship. Two of which are as follows: 1) the reference to Peter as a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings seems to suggests that the sun prefix should be carried semantically over to the idea of marvtu", thus the author is not alone in his witness of those sufferings⁶ and 2) the paratactic connection (dev) with the next clause which discusses sharing in the future glory, suggests that the idea of "sharing in" is inherent in the noun mavrtu".⁷ These two facts would rule out Selwyn's idea of an eye-witness. What Peter seems to be saying is that he is a fellow elder, and just like they, he testifies to the sufferings of Christ which he has shared in. As Feine, Behm and Kümmel say,

[the] "witness of the sufferings of Christ" hardly designates an eyewitness of Christ's own sufferings, but a Christian, who, like the Christians addressed, has experienced "the sufferings of Christ" and can witness to them, or who, like them, is a "witness for the sufferings of Christ."⁸

The reference to "Babylon" in 5:13 does seem to provide indirect support for Petrine authorship, once the identification has been pinned down. There have been three suggestions as to the identification of "Babylon." First, it has been argued that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 refers to a city in Egypt near Old Cairo. Both Strabo (Geographia 17:1, 30) and Josephus (Ant 2. 315) mention a Roman garrison near Old Cairo and tradition associates John Mark with the founding of the Egyptian church (Eccl. Hist. 2.16, 24). But, tradition does not connect Peter with the church there.⁹ There is a second suggestion, namely, it refers to "Babylon" on the Euphrates in Mesopotamia. But again, there is apparently no tradition (Syrian or otherwise) to connect Peter with this metropolis either.¹⁰ There is a third suggestion, most widely accepted and for which there is the most historical support: Peter is referring in cryptic fashion to Rome. John referred to Rome as Babylon several times in his Apocalypse (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21) and such a designation is common in Jewish materials as well (2 Baruch 11:1a; 67:7; 2 Esdras 3:1, 28). In referring to Nero fleeing from Rome, Sib. Or. 5:143, 159 says,

He will flee from Babylon, a terrible and shameless prince whom all mortals and noble men despise . . . a great star will come from heaven to the wondrous sea and will burn the deep sea and Babylon itself and the land of Italy, because of which many holy faithful Hebrews and a true people perished.¹¹

If this third suggestion be accepted it would tend to corroborate Peter as the author since he was known to have been in Rome at the end of his life.¹² He could then have written the letter from there.

External.

Beyond the internal evidence, tradition associates Peter with Rome and his writing of the letter from there (Eccl. His. 2.15.2). There is also the possibility that the epistle was used by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and that borrowing can be seen in Ignatius, Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas and Polycarp.¹³ But, many scholars reject these parallels. There is also the question of why Peter's letters do not appear in the Muratorian Fragment. Some have concluded that the letters were not considered canonical, but it is likely, according to Guthrie, that there is a chasm in the text.¹⁴ In summary, though the external evidence is inconclusive, it would seem to allow for a date in the lifetime of Peter during his stay in Rome before his execution.¹⁵ This conclusion would corroborate Peter's claim to authorship as found in 1:1.¹⁶

Arguments against Petrine authorship

Linguistic and stylistic.

F. W. Beare, while giving several reasons for unequivocally denying Petrine authorship, asserts that the rhetorical style and extensive, and even learned vocabulary of 1 Peter, is the most decisive argument against Petrine authorship. According to Beare, this is a "feat plainly far beyond the powers of the Galilean fisherman, who at the time of the crucifixion could neither read nor write even his own native tongue (Aramaic)."¹⁷ To this Beare adds the description of Peter as one who was ajgravmmato" (Acts 4:13); meaning he was illiterate.

In response to Beare it must be said at the outset that his particularly pejorative understanding of ajgravmmato" is neither necessary, nor likely. It may simply mean "uneducated"¹⁸ and in Acts 4:13, the verse Beare cites, it is in relation to the learning of the High Priest, elders and teachers of the law (4:5, 6) and their theological disputations that Peter is considered to be uneducated (i. e. he did not have their formal training). But Josephus (Against Apion 2.178) and Philo (Legatio ad Gaium 210; cf. also M Pirke Aboth 5:21) point out quite clearly that literacy and a sound knowledge of the Law was the possession of the first century people of the land (i.e. Jam ha'ares).¹⁹

Another assumption in Beare's argument is that Peter's Greek was no better after over 30 years of further use in the context of Palestine and abroad. As Guthrie points out, he lived in a bilingual area and would have used Greek of a colloquial kind in his ministry and in conversations with Hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem and Antioch.²⁰ It is simply impossible to argue from what we know about Peter that he is not the author of 1 Peter on the basis of the Greek employed. There is no historical evidence for such certain judgment.²¹ The fact that Papias says Mark was Peter's interpreter should not be pushed too far so as to infer that Mark translated Peter's Aramaic into Greek. The term hermeneutes can simply mean "to expound" and this is probably what Papias had in mind.²²

Beare also argues that the author's knowledge of the LXX is both thorough and of a literary nature. For this reason he says, Peter, a man who only used the LXX later in life, cannot be the author.²³ A. F. Walls responded to this argument by indicating that Peter most likely experienced an early acquaintance with the LXX. This is true he asserts on the grounds that 1) Hellenism had invaded into the religious sphere of highly orthodox Jews; 2) Greek speaking Hellenistic Jews formed their own synagogues in Palestine; 3) there were Hellenistic Jews in the Jerusalem church in Acts 6; 4) James used the LXX (Acts 15:14-18); 5) Justin Martyr, a native of Samaria in the second century, used in the LXX in all his writings and 6) the LXX was the primary version of the OT among Christians of the first century.²⁴ Therefore we may conclude that it is reasonable to believe that Peter was well versed in the LXX.

Historical.

There are also several historical objections to Petrine authorship, two of which are as follows. First, there is the problem of the persecutions mentioned in the letter (1:6; 3:13-17; 4:12-19; 5:9). It is argued that these cannot be during Nero's reign as there is no evidence that such persecutions ever entered the regions to which Peter was writing.²⁵ It is alleged that they correspond better with a time period in Trajan's reign (ca. A. D. 112).²⁶ But, as Best has said,

In view of the difficulty of associating references to persecution in 1 Peter with any known periods of persecution it would appear more satisfactory to abandon the attempt at identification. Persecution of Christians in the ancient world was endemic and might thus well be described as worldwide; this would be all the more likely if it was believed that the end was coming and persecution was one of its signs.²⁷

There is another historical objection to Petrine authorship which concerns itself with Peter's relationship to the churches (i.e. in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythnia) he addresses in his letter. These were churches that would most naturally come under the ministry of the apostle Paul. Such is not a grave concern, however, for if Paul were dead,²⁸ it would not be unthinkable for Peter to send a message of encouragement to his churches. Besides, as Beare points out, there is no degree of certainty that these were indeed churches founded by the apostle Paul.²⁹

Doctrinal.

There are several objections that can be listed under the heading of doctrinal. First, in 1 Peter there appears to be a significant number of words and ideas in common with Paul's writings. From this it has been suggested that Peter, who was at odds with Paul and the Gentile mission (Gal 2:11-14 is often cited as proof of a rift between them) could not have written the book.³⁰ In fact Bultmann referred to it as a letter belonging to a Pauline school.³¹ Goppelt lists about 12 citations from Romans that appear similar to texts in 1 Peter, but concludes in the end that none of the citations, except those from the OT, are verbatim. This leaves him with the conclusion that there is no literary dependence on Romans, but only dependence on common apostolic tradition (containing other early Christian teaching; James, Polycarp and Synoptic traditions) which was influenced by Paul.³² That there is a similarity should not be surprising anyway. Peter was in Rome at the same time as Paul, near the end of their lives, and Silvanus who worked with Peter (1 Peter 5:12) was probably the same individual who traveled and assisted Paul (cf. Acts 15:22; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1).³³

Second, Best cites what amounts to him as another problem: "If the author of 1 Peter heard Jesus teach on as many occasions as Peter did we should expect to find strong reminiscences of Jesus' words in the letter."³⁴ He goes on to demonstrate that the parallels are few and most likely the result of tradition; not due to having been with Jesus. If this were true, and it is far from being certain,³⁵ it still amounts to no real argument against Petrine authorship. This is only what one might expect to find. It is not determinative for authorship. There is no need to cite the Lord as an authority if Peter's authority as one who speaks for the Lord is well known.³⁶ In all likelihood his readers knew the traditions about Jesus and Peter simply reminded them of teaching with which they were accustomed.

The arguments against Petrine authorship are not substantial enough to outweigh the combined testimony of the letter (1 Peter 1:1) and that of the early church. However, in the light of the aforementioned problems, many scholars have suggested one of two basic solutions, apart from direct Petrine authorship.

First, there are those who argue for 1 Peter as a pseudonymous letter.³⁷ In fact, Beare says rather confidently that "there can be no possible doubt that 'Peter' is a pseudonym."³⁸ The problems of the sophisticated Greek, dependence on Paul and use of the OT, lead Beare in this direction. The only support he can give for the practice of pseudepigraphical writings is the rather vague reference that there was "frequent resort to pseudonyms in both Jewish and Christian literature of the period."³⁹ But, such a thesis is difficult to sustain for there are no concrete examples upon which to base it and the problem of motive (i.e. authority, deception, etc.) in the production of pseudepigraphical writings still remains to be solved.⁴⁰

There is a second theory for those who find in the details facts that make it difficult to accept direct Petrine authorship. In 5:12 the text reads DiaV Silouanou' uJmi'n tou' pistou' ajdelfou', wJ" logivzomai, di= ojlivgwn e[graya. From this it has been argued that Peter and Silvanus both were involved in the production of the letter—the exact roles played by both remaining uncertain. Feine, Behm, Kümmel claim that such an hypothesis is unfounded as no one has of yet demonstrated that gravfw diaV tino" can mean to have a piece of writing composed by another.⁴¹ Grudem rejects it for similar reasons with the added note that the focus on Silvanus as a "faithful brother" steers one in the direction of understanding him as the bearer of the letter. He cites 1 Cor 16:10, 11; Eph 6:21, 22; Col 4:7-9 and Titus 3:12, 13 as support.⁴² Many scholars, however, do not see these as insurmountable problems with regard to Silvanus as an amanuensis. Reike says that the Greek of the letter is too sophisticated for Peter to have written, but a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37) like Silas, and a trusted companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 15:39; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1) could have done it. The fact that it has much in common with Pauline tradition, that it shows a thorough knowledge of the LXX and that there are no striking Semitisms argues for Silvanus, since he is the only other person historically who is connected to the letter's production (excluding Mark).⁴³

In order to defend the notion that Peter was not connected directly to the letter, one would have to overturn the testimony of the early church on the one hand and demonstrate the practice of pseudonymous letter writing on the other. The contents do not reflect a worldwide persecution, such that the date would be beyond Peter's lifetime—therefore pseudonymity is not necessary. In the end, we simply do not have enough information to conclude that Peter did not write the letter. We do not know enough about Peter's years from A. D. 35 to the early 60's when this letter was written to definitively conclude that he could not have written the letter. Given these data it is more reasonable to conclude that Peter did indeed write the letter. This is the explicit testimony of the letter itself (1:1). Beyond this, as to Silvanus's contribution, and it appears that he did contribute, only God knows.

Readership

The readers of the letter are located in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1:1); all designations for Roman provinces, the order of which probably represents the route Silvanus may have taken in his delivery of the letter.⁴⁴ It would appear that the churches were composed of a diverse group of people, the Hellenistic city being the center of that diversity. There was great economic diversity as well as religious diversity. In terms of the religious pluralism, Schutter says, "The religious diversity of these cities was immense, including the more traditional divinities of the hearth and classical types, as well as indigenous types, syncretistic formulations, some Mysteries, the Emperor cult, and Judaism."⁴⁵ Concerning the economic diversity and social status, the interpretation of parepidhvmoi" (1:1) and paroivkou" are important. Without entering into the debate at length, however, it is probably better to regard these designations in a primarily spiritual sense, rather than socially. There may be an indication in the terms that the recipients had severely restricted civil rights, but this is not at all clear.⁴⁶ Not much weight should be placed upon them for an understanding of the social condition of the readers. Perhaps the reference to servants (oijkevtai) in 2:18 indicates a lower class of society, but the reference to the duties of citizenship (2:11-17) may refer to free men. The conclusion that best accounts for the data appears to be a socially diverse group of people.⁴⁷ The references to "former lusts" (1:14); "futile way of life" (1:18); "once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God" (2:10) and "having carried out the desires of the Gentiles in times past" (4:3); all these point to a primarily Gentile audience, that Peter addresses as if they were Jews.⁴⁸

The Literary Setting of the Passage and Its Relation to the Argument of the Book

The Argument of the Book

The Christians of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1:1) are to stand fast in the grace of God (5:12) which resulted in their salvation (1:3-12) by 1) living holy and loving lives among the saints (1:13-2:10); 2) living submissive lives before the authorities (2:11-17) and within the family (2:18-3:12); 3) living honorably in the face of suffering (3:13-4:19) and 4) maintaining and developing quality leadership in the church (5:1-11). Our passage, then, contributes to the theme of standing fast in God's grace, by showing that such a command reaches outward in relationships to encompass submission to human authority, including governmental authority.

The Immediate Literary Setting of the 2:13-17

Peter has outlined the nature of the salvation God has wrought for his readers and has summarily called them to a certain standard of living (1:3-2:10). This exhortation has primarily to do with relationships in the church. A new section begins in 2:11-3:12 where Peter wants to direct his audience's concern to certain ethical injunctions concerning the state, family, and relationships in general. In this regard 2:11, 12 forms a general statement from which applications to the state, family, and others will be drawn. Therefore, we may say that 2:13-17 is a concrete example of how Peter envisioned his readers living good lives among the pagans and bringing glory to God—thus standing fast in the grace of God.⁴⁹ Further we may say that the use of uJpotavghte in 2:13 reverberates through the other codes in the use of the participle uJpotassovmenoi in 2:18 (slaves) and uJpotassovmenai in 3:1, 7 (implied in verse 7) referring to wives and their relationship to their husbands. Thus uJpotavghte in 2:13 stands not only as the main thought in the Christian's relation to the governing authorities, but also as the underpinning of all other relationships Peter mentions. The apostle Paul maintained a similar idea (Eph. 5:21).⁵⁰

The Historical Setting of 2:13-17

The situation presupposed by 2:11, 12; 2:13-17 and indeed 3:8-4:19 appears to be the general slander of non-Christians against Christians. The fact that Peter says that the non-Christians (cf. e[qnesin [2:12]; ajgnwsivan [2:15]) slander the Christians' good behavior, and that they are surprised (xenivzontai) that the Christians do not run with them any longer into their abominable lifestyles (4:4), demonstrates that what we have for background to 2:13-17 is not Christians rebelling against the authorities per se, but non-Christians inciting the authorities to action against the Christians on charges of being a threat to society. In 4:15 Peter refers to a list of crimes for which the Christians were probably accused, including murder, theft, doing evil (kakopoiov") and meddling in other's affairs. Those who commit such acts would be considered kakopoiw'n. Beare argues that Christians were also accused at this time of such things as cannibalism and incest,⁵¹ but, as Biggs points out, this is particularly a second century phenomena, not to be drawn out of the words of Peter.⁵² To be sure they were katalalei`n . . . wJ" kakopoiw`n but this seems to be a reference to the fact that they posed a threat to their own society by living in ways contrary to it. They were accused of such things as disloyalty to Caesar (John 19:12), disturbing those who made their living from certain trades which were connected to false religion (Acts 16:16; 19:23) as well as "hatred toward mankind" (Tacitus, Annales, 15.44; Col. 2:16) and following a "new and mischievous superstition" (Suetonius, Nero, 16).⁵³ As Kelly says,

The language (cf. esp. vilify as wrongdoers) is strong, and shows up in an arresting way the perilous situation in which 1^st cent. Christians were liable to find themselves. While their faith as such may not have been legally a crime, they were the object of blind suspicion and detestation, and so exposed to all sorts of victimization, possibly even police charges arising out of public disorders.⁵⁴

This then is the situation in which Peter's readers would have found themselves and as such forms the background to his injunctions in 2:13-17.

An Outline of 1 Peter⁵⁵

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1, 2)

A. The Author: Peter, an apostle (1:1a)

B. The Recipients (1:b, 2a)

1. God's elect

2. Strangers

3. Scattered throughout

a. Pontus

b. Galatia

c. Cappadocia

d. Asia

e. Bithynia

4. Chosen

a. Through the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit

b. For Obedience

C. The Salutation Proper (1:2b)

II. THE GRACE OF GOD AS THE FOUNDATION FOR LIFE (1:3-12)

A. The Security of Salvation (3-9)

1. It is Founded on the Resurrection (3-5)

2. It is Developed through Trials (6-9)

B. The Antecedents of Salvation (10-12)

1. The Questions of the Prophets (10, 11)

2. The Service of the Prophets (12)

III. THE GRACE OF GOD IN A CHRISTIAN CONTEXT (1:13-2:10)

A. A General Call to Holiness (13-16)

B. A General Call to Fear (17-21)

C. A General Call to Love (22-25)

D. A Call to Community (2:1-10)

IV. THE GRACE OF GOD IN A SOCIETAL CONTEXT (2:11-3:12)

A. A General Principle (2:11, 12)

B. Submission to Authorities (2:13-17)

C. Submission of Slaves to Masters (2:18-25)

D. Submission of Wives to Husbands (3:1-6)

E. Respect of Husbands for Wives (3:7)

F. Summary Statement (3:8-12)

V. THE GRACE OF GOD IN SUFFERING (3:13-4:19)

A. Results in a Proper Response to Suffering (3:13-22)

1. The Context: "Doing Good" and Setting Aside Fear (3:13,14)

2. Sharing Christ with Respect (3:14-21a)

3. Maintaining Confidence Before God (3:21b, 22)

B. Results in Praise to God (4:1-11)

1. By Living Holy Lives Among the Pagans (4:1-6)

2. By Praying (4:7)

3. By Living Loving Lives Among the Brethern (4:8-11)

C. Results in Joy (4:12-19)

1. Because Christians Share in Christ's Sufferings (4:12, 13)

2. Because God's Spirit Rests on Those Who Suffer (4:14, 15)

3. Because A Christian Bears Christ's Name (4:16)

4. Because God is Refining His Church (4:17-19)

V. THE GRACE OF GOD AMONG ELDERS AND YOUNGER MEN (5:1-11)

A. The Character of Elders (5:1-4)

B. The Character of Young Men (5:5-11)

VI. CONCLUSION (5:12-14)

A. Exhortation to Stand Fast in The True Grace of God (5:12)

B. Greetings from Babylon (5:13, 14a)

C. Peace (5:14b)

A Grammatical Layout,
Outline and Translation of the Passage

Textual Problems

NA²⁶ lists in total 9 textual problems. None of these problems are of any consequence;⁵⁶ with the result that Metzger does not bother to list any of them in his Textual Commentary.⁵⁷ This, notwithstanding, J. P. Wilson suggests a textual emendation in 2:17: pavnta poihvsate for the NA²⁶ reading pavnta" timhvsate.⁵⁸ Wilson points out that poihvsate is found with pavnta in the New Testament; that 2:17 as it stands is not quoted by any of the apostolic fathers who knew our epistle and that a likely emendation can easily be reconstructed. The problem, however, with such an approach is that it is totally lacking in manuscript evidence. For this reason it is to be rejected in favor of the strongly attested reading pavnta" timhvsate.

A Grammatical/Clausal Layout

¹³ JUpotavghte pavsh/ ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei diaV toVn kuvrion:

ei[te basilei' wJ" uJperevconti,

¹⁴ei[te hJgemovsin wJ" di= aujtou' pempomevnoi" eij" ejkdivkhsin kakopoiw'n

e[painon deV ajgaqopoiw'n:

¹⁵ o{ti ou{tw" ejstiVn toV qevlhma tou' qeou',

ajgaqopoiou'nta" fimou'n thVn tw'n ajfrovnwn ajnqrwvpwn ajgnwsivan:

¹⁶ wJ" ejleuvqeroi, kai . . . . mhV wJ" ejpikavlumma e[conte" th'" kakiva" thVn ejleuqerivan,.

. . . . ajll= wJ" qeou' dou'loi.

¹⁷pavn```ta".	timhvsate,
thVn ajdelfovthta	ajgapa'te,
toVn qeoVn.	fobei'sqe,
toVn basileva.	tima'te.

Exegetical Outline

Subject/Complement: The way in which Peter's readers can silence the foolish (talk) of ignorant men is by submitting to the governing authorities as freemen; a submission which is an application of the broader principle of rendering to each person, including God, the proper response.

I. The way in which Peter's readers can silence the foolish (slander) of ignorant men is by submitting to the governing authorities (13-16).

A. Christians are to submit to the king as sovereign (13)

B. Christians are to submit to governors as ones sent by the king because they will punish those who do not and praise those who do (14)

1. Christians are to submit to governors as ones sent by the king (14a)

2. Governors have the power to punish evil-doers and praise those who do good (14b).

C. Parenthesis: The will of God is to silence foolish slander by doing good deeds (15)

D. Christians are to submit to the state as freemen, not using their freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God (16).

1. Christians are to submit to the state as freemen (16a)

2. Christians are not to use their freedom to cover over evil (16b)

3. Christians are to use their freedom as servants of God (16c)

II. The way in which Peter's readers can silence the foolish (talk) of ignorant men is by rendering to each person, including God, the proper honor (17).

A. Christians are to honor all men (17a)

B. Christians are to love the brotherhood (17b)

C. Christians are to fear God (17c)

D. Christians are to honor the king (17d)

A Translation

2:13 Submit (yourselves) for the Lord's sake to every man, whether to the King as sovereign,

2:14 or to governors sent by him for the purpose of punishing those who do evil and praising those who do good.

2:15 For in this way the will of God is carried out, namely, that by doing good deeds the ignorance of foolish men is silenced.

2:16 (Submit) as freemen, but do not use your freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God.

2:17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

The Exegesis Proper

2:13 JUpotavghte pavsh/ ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei diaV toVn kuvrion: ei[te basilei' wJ" uJperevconti "Submit (yourselves) for the Lord's sake to every man, whether to the King as sovereign,"

This section begins rather abruptly as an example of the kind of "good deeds" to which Peter referred in 2:12.⁵⁹ Peter's readers are not to give in to the sarkikw'n ejpiqumiw'n (2:11) despite the fact that such desires strateuvontai kataV th'" yuch'". They are not to return evil for evil; insult for insult (3:9). Instead, they are to thVn ajnastrofhVn uJmw'n ejn toi'" e[qnesin e[conte" kalhvn so that the Gentiles might glorify God at his coming.⁶⁰ This includes: submission of servants to their masters, wives to their husbands (2:18-3:7); zeal for good deeds (3:13); suffering justly (3:17; 4:15) and here in our passage, submission to authorities (2:13-17).

The imperative uJpotavghte implies that the readers have to make a choice about whether they will respond to pavsh/ ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei in a way that Peter desires.⁶¹ Though the term functions semantically as a comprehensive aorist, with undefined action, the command indicates a posture that is to permanently remain among the Christians insofar as their relations to the civil authorities (and the rest of society as well) are concerned. This is born out by two facts: 1) as long as there are civil authorities there is the need to submit to them and 2) the presence of ajgaqopoiou'nta" (v. 15) indicates an ongoing relationship. Peter frequently uses the aorist in places where the present would carry the same meaning.⁶² The presence of the aorist therefore does not address a particular problem at that time, i.e. the Christians were rebelling en masse against governmental authorities, but only indicates a global view of the attitude Peter wants his readers to have.⁶³

But what is the force of the term uJpotavghte? Does it mean uncritical submission at all points? Does it refer to some other, less stringent, idea? For answers to these questions we turn our attention to the use of the word in the NT, Jewish materials, and the LXX. The term is used 6 times in 1 Peter (2:13, 18; 3:1, 5, 22; 5:5),⁶⁴ 18 times in Paul and 14 other times in the New Testament. Peter uses it in conjunction with submission to the state (2:13), among family members (2:18; 3:1, 5), the subjection of angelic powers to Christ (3:22) and youth and elder relationships in the church (5:5).

In the book of Romans, Paul uses the term in conjunction with savrx and its inability to submit to the law of God (8:7), and the subjection of the creation to futility by God (8:20)⁶⁵ as well as Israel's failure to submit to God's righteousness, instead of creating their own. It also occurs twice in Romans 13:1, 5 in the context of submission to civil authorities. Paul also uses the term to refer to submission of all things to Christ in the process of redemption (1 Cor 15:27, 28; Eph 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Heb 2:5, 8; cf. 1 Peter 3:22) and in relationships in the church. Prophets are to be in submission, one to another, so that peace and order may be maintained (1 Cor 14:32). This is also true of women's roles in the church (14:34) and husband/wife relations as well. The wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; Ps. Callisth., I, 22, 4; cf. 1 Peter 3:1, 5).⁶⁶ Slaves are to be subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; cf. 1 Peter 2:18), men and women to their spiritual leaders ( 1 Cor 16:16; cf. 1 Peter 5:5) and of course submission to God himself is enjoined (Heb 12:9; James 4:7) in the New Testament. The idea of submission to political authorities is seen in Titus 3:1.

Finally, as far as NT usage is concerned, Luke uses it to refer to Jesus' submission to his parents after the Temple incident (Luke 2:51) and the fact that the demons had to submit to the disciples Jesus had sent out on a mission (10:17, 20). Its use in the New Testament, then, as far as human relationships in the redeemed community are concerned yields the idea of humble, informed submission to another in the light of God's will and redemptive work. That kind of submission is to happen in all relationships in life.

The term is found in literature outside the New Testament as well. Josephus uses it in relation to the submission of Israel to foreign powers, i.e. Rome (War, 2.433; 4.175). It is also seen as a commendable attitude in The Letter of Aristeas, 257 where the text refers to a person who has an attitude of willingness to submit to others. The king asks the question, "How can one find welcome abroad among strangers?" The answer given includes the idea of "appearing inferior rather than superior to those among whom one is a stranger." Here again we see that humility is at the core of the idea inherent in uJpotavssw.

The term is employed in the LXX about 90 times. Two instances of the verb in the middle voice are of note: 2 Maccabees 9:12 and 13:23. In 9:12 the writer relays the story of how Antiochus IV eventually submitted to God after God had smitten him with a wasting disease. In 13:23 the text says, "he [Antiochus] was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded and swore to observe all their rights." From these two examples we can see that humility is involved in a process of submitting oneself to a higher authority—ultimately a voluntary submission in the light of the power of the higher authority.

From this evidence it is clear that the term has the idea of curbing one's will to the will of another; in this respect, a higher authority. In only one instance in the New Testament does it explicitly carry the idea of "forced submission," i.e. compulsion (Luke 10:17, 20). But there are other observations that can be made as well. The term as used in the New Testament has the constant reminder that there is a divine "order" at work, wherein God values order and is seeking in the context of redemption to bring such a result out of the chaos of sin in human relations. Thus even Jesus had to submit to his earthly parents and his work on earth was carried out according to God's design and order (Luke 2:51). He will someday, according to God's order, turn over the kingdom to the Father and he himself will be subject to God (1 Cor 15:28). Insofar as this order and submission is inherent in the Trinity and its inner relations, so it must occur in the redeemed community—in worship, in family relations and in all other relations—as ones who have received the mercies and Spirit of the Trinity (1 Peter 1:2, 3-9). If the Son submits, we must all submit to whatever authority God the Father has appointed (cf. 1 Cor 11:12 in context).

The choice of the term uJpotavssw is interesting in the light of other terms Peter could have chosen—stronger terms which are rendered "obedience." They include peiqarcei`n, peivqesqai and uJpakouein.⁶⁷ This probably indicates that Peter does not have in mind slavish, uncritical obedience to the state, but that there are various points at which his readers could not, and indeed must not, submit to the authorities.⁶⁸ This particular aspect of the issue is not taken up, however, as it was his purpose to stress submission.⁶⁹

What Peter wants then, according to 1 Peter 2:13 is willing, intelligent submission to the authorities, out of humility, because one is conscience that this is God's will in the matter (2:15).⁷⁰ But there is another side to the matter if we are to answer the question as to the extent of the submission Peter enjoins on his readers. When a government fulfills its functions of maintaining justice and therefore, peace (2:14), and generally protects the welfare of its people, both against those from within and without who would threaten, then it is carrying out the end to which it was appointed (Romans 13:1b). It must be obeyed even if some things are tough—e. g. paying high taxes. But, when it crosses these boundaries and becomes an instrument for evil, violating the explicit will of God as outlined in Scripture, then it must not be followed (i.e. obeyed) at that point.⁷¹ When the explicit will of God conflicted with certain authorities, Peter said we must obey God, not men (Acts 5:29). Paul accused the governing authorities of carrying out sentence without proper jurisprudence and he demanded certain actions be taken to remedy the situation (Acts 16:37).⁷² If the spreading of the gospel is unwelcome by one's own state, then the Christian must suffer the consequences, but nevertheless continue to obey God.⁷³

Having seen the nature of the submission to which Peter calls his readers, we need further in this verse to examine the meaning of the phrase pavsh/ ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei. The noun ktivsei occurs 26 times in the New Testament and always refers to God's creation, either to the physical universe (including the world) or a creature within it (e.g. Mk 10:6; Rom 1:20; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Col 1:15).⁷⁴ The problem arises from the adjective ajnqrwpivnh/ and its modification of the noun (ktivsei). Does ktivsei then refer to God's creation among men? Or man's creation? Hort argued that the phrase should be translated as "every (divine) institution among men." While he acknowledged the wide use of ktivsei to refer to "men" in Classical Greek, he rejected the idea that such was the case here. There is no example in Classical Greek he says that provides an analogy to rulers or their offices being the creation of men. Also, according to Hort, it is not likely that Peter would enjoin submission to customs whose complete existence is owed to human ingenuity. With this in mind, as well as the fact that ktivsei is always used to refer to God's creation in the New Testament, Hort argued for ktivsei" which are limited to those which are characteristically human.⁷⁵ Bigg, based upon Classical usage, took ktivsei to refer to an "institution among men." This is problematic though for the term simply does not refer to human creations or institutions in the New Testament or the LXX.⁷⁶ Beare, who adopts a similar reading as Bigg, goes so far as to say, "An ajnqrwpivnh ktivsi" can mean nothing else than a governmental institution in human society.⁷⁷ There is nothing in the words to suggest or imply a divine origin for human institutions" (italics mine).⁷⁸ This is surely an acute case of petitio principii. There is no example where ktivsi" ever refers to a human institution of some kind. Beare rests his confident assertion on the idea that Peter is here using an expression for which we have no example and there is no useful parallel in Biblical Greek. Therefore the context demands the meaning of governmental authority.⁷⁹ But Beare takes no account of the Biblical use of the term which refers consistently to God's creation as a whole or some aspect of it.⁸⁰ This is not to say that Peter has a divine origin in mind for certain authorities, necessarily, but it is certainly going to far to say that the words do not even imply that such could be the case. In any event his interpretation suffers from a misreading of ktivsi". Perhaps the best understanding here is that given by Goppelt. He argues that ajnqrwpivnh ktivsei refers to human creatures.⁸¹ This has the support of giving ajnqrwpivnh its full force as an adjective modifying ktivsei which itself can be given its normal meaning as that which is created, thus delimiting ktivsi" as a reference to a human being. Several commentators adopt this reading as preferable.⁸² It is further strengthened, as Cranfield points out, by the qualifying pavsh/ within which are included governing individuals, wives and husbands, slaves and indeed all men (3:8).⁸³ It might also be noted that Peter's reference to men as ajnqrwpivnh ktivsei serves to avoid the ambiguity inherent in sole use of ktivsei⁸⁴ and also helps to remind his readers that no man (e.g. basilei`; hJgemovsin) possesses inherent or intrinsic authority, but stands in a similar relation to the Creator as one who was created.

Peter says, then, that his readers are to submit to every person diaV toVn kuvrion. To what does kuvrion refer? Christ or God? Kelly argues in his commentary that God is meant because it is "God who created the world and men; it is therefore out of regard for him as Creator that we ought to behave humbly towards our fellow-creatures."⁸⁵ The strength of this view is that it recognizes the force of ktivsei. The problem, however, as both Goppelt and Michaels point out, is that in the tradition of the station codes, kuvrio" is consistently employed as a reference to Jesus (cf. Eph 6:7, 8, 9; Col 3:20, 22, 23, 24; 4:1).⁸⁶ We should expect the same here. Indeed ethical injunctions in the early church are enjoined in the historical context of Christ as Redeemer, not primarily in the light of God as Creator.⁸⁷ Also, it appears that Peter does not use kuvrio" in his letter (1:3, 25; 2:3, 13; 3:6, 12 [2x], 15) to refer to God. A possible exception may be 3:12 where he quotes from Psalm 34:15, 16, but the use of the term in 1:3 wherein he distinguishes between God as Father and Christ as Lord seems to be programmatic for the entire letter such that when he uses the term Lord, even from an OT quotation, he is thinking of Christ.⁸⁸

Having identified toVn kuvrion as Jesus, what does the phrase, "for the Lord's sake" mean? It is difficult to say for certain the precise significance of this basis for submission. Perhaps it anticipates the obedience of Jesus referred to later in 2:21-23. In this case it means that one should submit on account of the fact that their Lord submitted to the authorities, Roman and Jewish.⁸⁹ There is also the probability that what we have in these words is an encouragement to submit so as not to bring dishonor to Christ; the one whom they are supposed to preach (3:15) and the One who will judge all mankind (4:5).⁹⁰ Both seem to be equally reasonable suggestions.

There are several inferences that can be drawn from the passage regarding obedience to the state. First, submission is on account of Christ and not some intrinsic authority residing in the Emperor (who was known as kuvrio" as well)⁹¹ or his magistrates. To be sure, they have power, as Peter says to punish evil doers and praise those who do good (2:14), but this does not appear to be the driving motivation for Christians. They should obey because in so doing they are rendering service to their Lord and Savior (cf. 2 Peter 3:18). They are carrying out the will of God (2:15). In this sense, Peter comes very close to Paul's rationale (Rom 13:1, 2).

Second, as Selwyn points out, such an appeal to Christ as the basis for submission implies an inward motivation not just an outward submission.⁹² There is the recognition of the regenerate heart that order in society (cf. Romans 13:2 and diatagh/`) is that which the Father desires and they are his bond-slaves to humbly recognize it (2:16).

Third, obedience is limited to that which God would approve of and does not violate his expressed will. Thus, the state is not at liberty to crush its citizens on the basis of such a passage, for Peter clearly implies a state that knows the difference between what is evil and what is good. In fact it is only on that basis that the state could punish the one and praise the other (2:14).

Now that Peter has commanded voluntary submission to every person for the sake of the Lord he begins in verse 13b to spell out some of the people he has in mind.⁹³ He says that his readers should submit to the basilei' wJ" uJperevconti. The designation basilei~ belonged to client princes whom Rome had installed in various imperial provinces, including Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Pergamum, etc.⁹⁴ It was also applied to world monarchs such as Alexander the Great (cf. Daniel 11:3 [LXX]) and Stephen applied the title to Pharoah (Acts 7:10, cf. also verse 18). Here, though, similar to what we find in John 19:15, Acts 17:7, Revelation 17:9 and 1 Clement 37:3, Peter refers to the emperor as the King. Josephus also refers to Roman emperors as kings: "for the Roman emperors (basileu") did ever both honor and adorn this temple" (Wars 5. 563). That this is the case in 1 Peter is evidenced by the fact that the only one who was king to Peter and to those who were regarded as parepidhvmoi" diaspora'", that is, scattered throughout 5 Asian provinces, was the emperor.⁹⁵ While Peter is being more concrete than Paul who simply refers to the state as ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai", th'/ ejxousiva/, a[rconte" and diavkono" (Rom 13:1, 3, 4), he does not come right out and mention Nero.⁹⁶ But the reference is clear and indicates that while there does not yet appear to be tyranny, submission to the state is not dependent on the goodness of the ruler, but on the office—as it is there to keep harmony in society, i.e. punish the wrong and praise the good.⁹⁷

A second fact which indicates that indeed the emperor is in view is the expression wJ" uJperevconti. The particle wJ" is functioning causally⁹⁸ and the term uJperevconti carries the idea of "superior" or "highest." It is used in a literal sense to refer to the fact that the water during the Flood was 15 cubits higher than the earth (Josephus, Ant. 1, 89). But it is also used figuratively to refer to those in higher positions of authority, i.e. rulers. In Wisdom of Solomon 6:5 the text reads "because severe judgment falls on those in high places" where kings and rulers (cf. 6:1, 2) are clearly the referent for those in high places. Consider also 2 Maccabees 3:11 and the relation of wealth to positions of power and Philo, De Agricultura, 121, for its use to refer to a superior athlete (a qualitative use). There is no question here, though, that the reference is to the emperor as the highest in the state and ruler over the Roman empire (cf. also its use in Romans 13:1).⁹⁹

2:14 ei[te hJgemovsin wJ" di= aujtou' pempomevnoi" eij" ejkdivkhsin kakopoiw'n e[painon deV ajgaqopoiw'n: "or to governors sent by him for the purpose of punishing those who do evil and praising those who do good."

Peter has just commanded submission to the emperor. But, many of his readers would not have come in contact with the emperor, so Peter insists on obedience to the hJgemovsin; a term which refers to provincial governors and was used especially of the procurators and prefects in Judea. The Synoptic writers use the term this way in Jesus' apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13:9 and parallels. Luke refers to Felix (Acts 23:24) and Festus (Acts 26:30) as hJgemonwvn. Josephus refers to Pilate as a hJgemwvn (Ant. 18. 55).¹⁰⁰ These governors could be referred to as "proconsuls" if they resided in a senatorial province, legates, if they acted as military commanders in imperial provinces or procurators who administered taxation and judged important cases.¹⁰¹ Rome distinguished between governors appointed by the emperor and those appointed by the Senate. For example the proconsuls were appointed by the Senate not the emperor.¹⁰² Peter does not seem to distinguish between these, but that does not necessarily entail the fact that he did not recognize the distinctions as Best claims.¹⁰³

The participial phrase di= aujtou' pempomevnoi" has been understood to refer to God as the one doing the sending of the hJgemovsin. Best says that "if we accept the RSVmg in verse 13a then this is probably a reference to God as the ultimate source of the power which comes to governors through the emperor."¹⁰⁴ Hort suggests the same reading of the passage. He says, "diav of course has its proper meaning, expressing the instrument or agent. The king appears here not as the source of the governor's authority, but as the channel by which Divine authority is conveyed to him. The divine source is not mentioned here, any more than with ktivsei, but it is distinctly indicated by diav."¹⁰⁵ The problem with the examples that Hort cites (Matt 11:2; Rev 1:1 and Rom 13:1, 2, 4, 6), is that while diav is used to indicate Christ or God as the ultimate personal agent, there is no other subject in the context to whom it could refer. Here, in 1 Peter 2:14 the nearest and most logical antecedent to the pronoun ajutw/` is clearly bavsileu". As was mentioned above, not all governors were sent by the emperor, but this causes no real problem for it is really Peter's intent to talk about submission to governing authorities, not necessarily what branch of the government appointed them.¹⁰⁶ As Michaels says, Peter would have agreed with Paul that there is no authority except God and those he appoints, but he does not seem to explicate such an idea here.¹⁰⁷

Now that Peter has mentioned that submission begins first with the ultimate political power, namely, the emperor, and those whom he sends out to administer the provinces (i.e. the governors), he begins to explicate the general responsibility of the state toward its constituents. The governors are sent by the emperor eij" ejkdivkhsin kakopoiw'n e[painon deV ajgaqopoiw'n.

The term ejkdivkhsin is used 82 times in the LXX. The putting to death of the first born of Egypt is considered by Moses to be a divine ejkdivkhsin (punishment) because of Pharoah's stubborn heart (Ex 12:12). Israel was also to take vengeance on the Midianites, putting them to death as divine justice (Num 31:3). God is said to be the avenger of his enemies in Sirach 18:24 and on several occasions the vengeance of man is spoken of (Sirach 25:14; 27:28), though God says he will avenge those who take revenge, i.e. without his approval (Sirach 28:1). Usually the vengeance spoken of results in death (cf. 1 Macc 9:42) and the term is used with poievw (Ex 12:12; Num 33:4; Judges 11:36; 15:7; 1 Macc 3:15, 7:9, 24, 38); ejkdikavzw (Num 31:2; Judges 16:28; Sirach 5:3; 1 Macc 9:42); divdwmi (2 Sam 4:8; 22:48; 1 Macc 2:67) and ajpodivdwmi (Num 31:3). On numerous occasions it is used with the preposition eij" (Judith 8:35; 9:2; Wis Sol 11:15). It carries the same meaning in Philo (Leg All 3. 106) and Testament of Solomon 22:4.

In the New Testament the term occurs 11 times and carries the meaning of vengeance or punishment. During the days of the tribulation the judgment on Jerusalem will be so great that Jesus could characterize those days as "days of revenge" (Luke 21:22).¹⁰⁸ The term is also used of human revenge and punishment as well (Acts 7:24), although God requires that Christians leave that matter to him for resolution at a later time (Rom 12:19). Thus there is inherent in the term the idea of justice and correct punishment for a crime committed. This, of course, is the heart of the meaning here in 1 Peter 2:14. The state is in place to punish kakopoiw'n (i.e. evildoers); those who commit crimes against the society which it protects and governs.¹⁰⁹

The expression e[painon deV ajgaqopoiw'n runs antithetical to ejkdivkhsin kakopoiw'n. On the one hand the state will punish those who do evil, but on the other hand it will praise those who do good. The nominal term ajgaqopoiw'n occurs once in the LXX in Sirach 42:14 and once in the NT, i.e. here in 1 Peter 2:14. The verbal form occurs 5 times in LXX¹¹⁰ and 9 times in the NT (4 in Luke, 4 in 1 Peter once in 3 John). Jesus referred to doing good on the Sabbath (Luke 6:9) and to those who persecute you (Luke 6:33, 35). John says that one who does good is of God (3 John 11). It might be that Peter is drawing in part on traditions from Jesus when he encourages his readers to do good in order to silence the false accusations of ignorant men (2:15; cf. Matt 5:16) and to persist in doing good in spite of the fact that they may suffer (2:20; 3:6, 17).¹¹¹ Such exhortations might also find their antecedents in Psalm 33:14, 15 in the LXX. The text reads:

33¹⁴pau'son th;n glw'ssavn sou ajpoV kakou' kaiV ceivlh sou tou' mhV lalh'sai dovlon. ¹⁵e[kklinon ajpoV kakou' kaiV poivhson ajgaqovn, zhvthson eijrhvnhn kaiV divwxon aujthvn.¹¹²

But his statement in verse 14, on the relation of the state to its constituents, seems to be particularly Greek in nature. It is similar to Paul's expression in Romans 13:3 where he says to; ajgaqo;n poivei kaiV e{xei" e[painon ejx aujth'" (aujth'"= the state). With the use of e[painon it suggests that this is probably the case. According to W.C. van Unnik, the idea of "praise" is most assuredly from a Greek perspective on state-citizen relations, since Josephus has expressly stated that such an attitude was not found among the Jews and their law (Josephus, Against Apion 2. 218). He finds support for the Greek origin of praising public benefactors in Diodorus Siculus, Universal History 15.1.1. Van Unnik does not argue for literary dependence by Peter, but simply that this kind of thinking was current in Greek culture at the time and Peter adopted it.¹¹³ And, the presence of e[painon suggests that Peter has in mind more than just keeping within the limits of the law. He intends, with the use of e[painon, to define ajgaqopoiw'n in reference to actual acts of public benefaction and civic virtue.¹¹⁴ This is not to say that the Christians, as they did good, actually expected to be recognized on some laudatory inscription or with a crown, statue, citizenship, etc., but that this was common for the governing authorities to recognize those who were exemplary people in Roman society.¹¹⁵

Thus, in verse 14, Peter has simply outlined the role of the state in respect to two different kinds of people. He seems to have in mind current Greek thinking on this issue and wants his readers to become ajgaqopoiw'n which is included in the process of God's will (v. 15) and may result in public recognition.

2:15 o{ti ou{tw" ejstiVn toV qevlhma tou' qeou'. ajgaqopoiou'nta" fimou'n thVn tw'n ajfrovnwn ajnqrwvpwn ajgnwsivan: "For in this way the will of God is carried out, namely, that by doing good deeds the ignorance of foolish men is silenced."

Peter says that he wants his readers to become ajgaqopoiw'n because this is the will of God so that by doing good they might silence the false accusations (cf. 2:12) that have arisen from among those who are ignorant of God and Christianity.

Michaels argues that the adverb ou{tw" looks forward to the participle ajgaqopoiou'nta" and indicates the means by which the will of God is carried out (i.e." doing good") and not necessarily on what the will of God is (i.e. silencing the critics).¹¹⁶ In this case the whole clause is parenthetical to what preceded in verse 14, especially to e[painon ajgaqopoiw'n, with the o{ti functioning causally.¹¹⁷ Kelly argues that ou{tw" looks backward to uJpotavghte (2:13) and affirms that submission to the state is the will of God. It is true that ou{tw" does generally look backward (cf. 3:15),¹¹⁸ but this leaves both the participial phrase ajgaqopoiou'nta". . . and the infinitive fimou`n too detached from toV qevlhma tou' qeou'.¹¹⁹ For this reason, and Hort's¹²⁰ contention that it constantly looks backward in the NT, it seems best to understand it in both ways. It looks back to uJpotavghte and forward to the participle.¹²¹ In this case it is God's will that they should submit and that by doing good deeds they should silence the talk of foolish men.

The expression toV qevlhma tou' qeou' occurs in 1 Peter in three other places: 3:17; 4:2, 19. It may lead to suffering (3:17; 4:19), but it always entails doing good and not being consumed with the lusts of men (4:2; cf. also Rom 12:2; Gal 1:4; Eph 5:18ff; 6:6; 1 Thes 4:3; 5:18).¹²²

The infinitival phrase (coupled with the adverbial participle ajgaqopoiou'nta") fimou'n thVn tw'n ajfrovnwn ajnqrwvpwn ajgnwsivan stands in epexegetical relation to qevlhma thus indicating that God's will is "to silence the ignorance of the foolish." The participle is related to the infinitive and indicates the means by which the action of the infinitive is to be fulfilled, i.e. by doing all kinds of good deeds.

The verb fimou'n occurs 7 times in the New Testament.¹²³ Jesus, by profoundly answering the question of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, effectively silenced them (Matt 22:34). As a demonstration of his authority over demons, Jesus silenced them by a command (Mark 1:25; Luke 4:35). He also silenced the storm as a demonstration of his power over nature (Mark 4:39; a figurative use of the term). The term is also used in 1 Timothy 5:18 in a quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4: "Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading out the grain." Thus we can say that Peter's idea is to muzzle the mouths of those who slander; effectively silencing them by doing good deeds. And their slander arises from the fact that they are ajgnwsivan. According to Peter such was the condition of his readers before they had come to faith (1:14).

The term ajgnwsivan occurs in 3 Macc 5:27, Job 35:6 and Wisdom of Solomon 13:1 in the LXX. In each case it refers to someone who is ignorant of God and displays that ignorance in either possessing no knowledge of his ways in general, or being oblivious to something specific he has just done. So its use in the only other New Testament passage, 1 Cor 15:34. Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for sinning in the midst of people who are ignorant about God, i.e. do not know about Christ and his resurrection.¹²⁴ Thus it is a religious ignorance that these people lack in 1 Peter and as a result they slander the Christian's good behavior and testimony about Christ (2:12; 3:16).¹²⁵

This ignorance proceeds from tw'n ajfrovnwn ajnqrwvpwn. Peter's use of ajfrovnwn to refer to those who slander is fairly pejorative. The term occurs 133 times in the LXX with 75 of them in Proverbs, and the bulk of the remainder coming in Ecclesiastes, Job, Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. It conveys the idea of someone who is an arrogant person (Prov 1:22), a fool lacking knowledge of God and demonstrating such a condition by either a morally bankrupt lifestyle (6:12) or indeed by directly denying God.¹²⁶

In the New Testament the term occurs 13 times, two of which are as follows: 1) In Luke 11:40 Jesus calls the Pharisees "fools" for their commitment to external religion to the denial of any inward reality and 2) in Luke 12:20 he rebukes a greedy man for being a fool in thinking that his life consisted in his possessions. Therefore, the term carries the same basic, negative connotations as in the LXX. Thus Peter does not mince words concerning these non-Christian antagonists. To him they are religiously ignorant which springs from their foolishness.¹²⁷ As Michaels says, "this is about as close as Peter gets to trading insults with his readers' enemies (something he expressly forbids in 3:9)."¹²⁸

2:16 wJ" ejleuvqeroi, kaiV mhV wJ" ejpikavlumma e[conte" th'" kakiva" thVn ejleuqerivan, ajll= wJ" qeou' dou'loi. "(Submit) as freemen, but do not use your freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God."

Christians are to submit to those in authority as freemen, not using their freedom as a covering in some way for evil, but as servants of God. This verse begins with the adverb wJ" which does not go with verse 15 since that would not make much sense; i.e. "to silence ignorant men as free men and not as holding a cover over evil." It is better to see it connected to the imperatives in the passage, either uJpotavghte in verse 13 or those in verse 17. Goppelt, Selwyn, et al. understand the phrase to form the predicate to the implied subject of uJpotavghte.¹²⁹ Kelly argues that the nominative adjective ejleuvqeroi stands on its own and is a complement to the preceding injunction. He inserts the imperative "live."¹³⁰ Goppelt is probably correct in his assessment of the grammar. The switch to the nominative, when the accusative is expected (due to ajgaqopoiou'nta" and fimou'n) takes us back to uJpotavghte. In this way the parenthetical character of verse 15 is seen for what it is. Michaels suggests, however, that once we understand that the imperatives of verse 17 resume and expand on what is enjoined in uJpotavghte, it becomes clear that the clause belongs with verse 17.¹³¹

Though it appears to be fairly certain that the wJ" clause goes not with verse 15, but with an imperative, it still remains difficult to decide which one. At this point I am content to relate it to uJpotavghte in verse 13 because unlike Michaels, I do not see a necessary problem in translation with such a choice: "Submit for the Lord's sake. . .as freemen . . . ." In this way, it allows verse 17 to stand more clearly as a summary of what has come before.

Verse 13 rules out the possibility that the term ejleuvqeroi refers to religious, political or social license of some kind. Concerning this freedom Davids says,

Christians are called to freedom, but it is not the political freedom of the Palestinian Zealots who "recognized God alone as their Lord and King" . . . nor that of the Stoics who struggled for sovereign detachment from the pains and pleasures of life, nor the freedom of the antinomian who flouts social and moral rules to gratify his or her own impulses.¹³²

The freedom about which Peter speaks harks back to his comment in 1:18 where he says that God has redeemed Christians from the empty way of life of their forefathers. This life was characterized by lust and ignorance of God (1:14), lack of spiritual community (2:10); a life of continual straying from God (2:25) and all manner of immorality (4:3).¹³³ This, Peter says, is that from which God has freed them. Since, then. they are no longer bound by sinful lives, should they submit to those who are sinners, e.g. the king, governors, etc.? The answer is yes. They are not to use their freedom wJ"¹³⁴ ejpikavlumma e[conte" th'" kakiva".

The term ejpikavlumma occurs only 4 times in the LXX and once in the New Testament.¹³⁵ Perhaps the most comparable usage is in Menander, Fragment, 90, which says plou`to" deV pollw`n ejpikavllum ejstiV kakw`n: "The wealth of many is a cover for [their] evil."¹³⁶ Peter is using it figuratively in reference to freedom; when such freedom is used to hide a real evil behind. The articular noun th'" kakiva" is an objective genitive and refers to all kinds of evil in thought and deed against God and our fellow man.¹³⁷ It seems that when Peter uses such broad references as the lusts which were in their former lives (1:14), we are to understand his reference here to kakiva" in an equally broad sense—including any evil done under the guise of being free. They are not to use their freedom as a cover for evil, ajll= wJ" qeou' dou'loi.

Peter's readers' freedom is not toward autonomy, but a freedom from slavery to lusts (cf. 1:14) to slavery to God (1 Cor 7:22; Rom 6:22). As Selwyn says, "Christian freedom rests not on an escape from service, but on a change of masters." The Christians to whom Peter was writing were free to submit to the state now as servants of God, for this formed part of their new master's will (cf. v. 15). Peter's designation of his readers as qeou' dou'loi seems to draw upon OT imagery (cf. Isaiah 42:19; 49:2; Luke 2:29; Titus 1:1; Rev. 1:1) wherein God takes people into his service and blesses them.¹³⁸

2:17 pavn```ta" timhvsate, thVn ajdelfovthta ajgapa'te, toVn qeoVn fobei'sqe, toVn basileva tima'te. "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king."

This verse sums up the essence of what Peter has been saying and also expands on the general idea of right relations to others. He wants his readers to give proper respect to all men, to love other Christians, to fear God and show respect for the king. That it is summary in nature is clear, but as to its exact structure, this is difficult to discern.

There has been great discussion over the structure of this verse. How do the four imperatives relate to each other? The first verb timhvsate is in the aorist tense, but the remaining three are in the present tense. The New English Bible translates the phrase as if the first imperative were a general command under which the following three imperatives come. But Beare appears to be correct in stating that the difference cannot be bound up with the aorist giving a global view under which the following imperatives reside. This is ruled out, it would seem, from toVn qeoVn fobei'sqe which is definitely above all.¹³⁹ Selwyn suggests the possibility that the aorist is due to euphony.¹⁴⁰ Hort argues that the change in tense to the present after the aorist, suggests that Peter was attempting to emphasize the first command according to his special purpose in the paragraph. The aorist tense was not used in the last clause, toVn basileva tima'te, because this would have given undue stress to it. Bammel suggests another, perhaps better, analysis of the structure. Basically, he argues that the last two clauses are based on Proverbs 24:21 in the LXX: fobou' to;n qeovn, uiJev, kai; basileva.¹⁴¹ But, Peter has changed the verbs: it is now toVn qeoVn fobei'sqe and toVn basileva tima'te. This change, in the last two clauses, suggests that there is a similar distinction between the first two clauses. This distinction is borne out by panta" and ajdelfovthta. But, he says, the presence of timavw in the first and fourth clauses argues for a relationship between them as well as one between the second and third. "If this is so, the sentence has the form a/b/b/a, an entity in which the latter rather than the former half is emphasized, and in which the imperative aorist is used as a synecdoche to stress the effectiveness of the expected acts."¹⁴²

The fourfold injunction follows immediately after qeou` douloiv (v. 16). Peter wants his readers, as servants of God, to honor all men. That is, they are to say and do things concomitant with the respect all men are to be shown.¹⁴³ The verb timavw is used 21 times in the NT and is commonly associated in the Synoptics with the proper attitude a child is to demonstrate to their parents (e.g. Matt 15:4; cf. also Eph 6:2). It is also applied to God in John's gospel (John 5:23; 8:49) as well as the honoring of Paul (Acts 28:10) and widows (1 Tim 5:3). It is also used to refer to money (Matt 27:9). Though Peter does not explicate the idea here, this honor and respect for all men is most likely grounded in the fact that they are creations of God (cf. ktivsei in verse 13).¹⁴⁴ And, the fact that pavnta" stands first in the clause emphasizes all men without exception. Peter's readers are not to go about choosing whom they will respect and honor. Such an attitude is forbidden by this verse. They are to honor all men.

The second imperatival phrase thVn ajdelfovthta ajgapa'te presents a contrast to pavn```ta" timhvsate. This is not to say that Peter stands in opposition to Jesus' commands to love one's enemies (Matt 5:44), but only that, just as Paul revealed (Gal 6:9,10), there is a priority in a Christian's relationships. The ajdelfovthta is to be loved as of first importance. Peter has also enjoined a sincere love of the brethern upon his readers (1:22) and an attitude of brotherly kindness in general (3:8). The term ajdelfovthta occurs 2 times in 1 Macc and 5 times in 4 Macc. It refers to strong, deep, family ties in the Maccabees, even in the midst of deadly persecution. Peter also uses it in the context of demonic attack and human persecution in 5:9. It is possible that Peter has the seven brothers in mind from the Maccabean stories who defy Antiochus IV. There does not appear to be any parallel between Antiochus and Nero, but only that the seven were righteous sufferers and those to whom Peter was writing were suffering unrighteous persecution.¹⁴⁵ In any case, Peter is commanding the Christians to deeply love one another as a family.¹⁴⁶

Turning to the second set of imperatives, Peter says toVn qeoVn fobei'sqe, toVn basileva tima'te. The mention of God leads to the mention of the emperor in the same breadth, so to speak. The order is the opposite of Mark 12:17, but the juxtaposition of the two may have arisen from this Synoptic tradition.¹⁴⁷ As was mentioned above, the idea of fearing God is probably derived from Proverbs 24:21. The fear about which Peter speaks is the not the fear that arises from an enemy or due to the possibility of punishment per se. This kind of fear (better: "dread") would be inconsistent for those who had received toV poluV aujtou' e[leo" (1:3), who touV" ejn dunavmei qeou' frouroumevnou" (1:5) and who were expecting grace at the parousia (1:13). Indeed they are the people of God (2:10) and he is the guardian of their souls (2:25). The kind of fear that Peter seems to have in mind can be described as a healthy appreciation for God's impartial judgments and the greatness of the salvation he has wrought for believers (1:17-19). It is the wholesome dread of displeasing him, the God of all grace, who has called them into his eternal glory (5:10).¹⁴⁸ The Christians of Asia are to fear and reverence God as the one who has ultimate power and authority (5:11), not the emperor.¹⁴⁹

Having said this though, Peter wants his readers to know that the emperor must be honored, that is, paid the respect due to the one who is sovereign in the political realm. The way the Christians can honor him is by submitting to him.

Selected Bibliography

Books

Arichea, Daniel C. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translators Handbook on The First Letter from Peter. New York: United Bible Societies, 1980.

Barbieri, Louis A. First and Second Peter. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977.

Barrett, C. K. New Testament Essays. London: SPCK, 1972.

Beare, Francis Wright. The First Epistle of Peter. 3^rd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970.

Best, Ernst. 1 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and Edited by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. New York: Doubleday, 1969.

Carr, Wesley. Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Volumes I & II. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 85.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1 & II Peter and Jude. Torch Bible Commentaries. Edited by John Marsh and Alan Richardson. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1956.

________. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr—A Historical and Theological Study. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953.

Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. The New Century Bible Commentary, Rev. ed. Edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 1976.

Feine, Paul and Johannes Behm. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Werner Georg Kümmel. Translated by A. J. Mattill. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Freed, Edwin D. The New Testament: A Critical Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1986.

Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on 1 Peter. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Grudem, Wayne A. The First Epistle of Peter. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Rev ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

Harris, Horton. The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

Hart, H. ST J. "The Coin of 'Render Unto Caesar . . .'." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammell and C. F. D. Moule, 241-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Hart, J. H. A. "The First Epistle General of Peter." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Vol. 5. Reprint. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary. Vol. 16. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.

Hort, F. J. A. The First Epistle of St Peter I. I—II. 17. New York: MacMillan & Company, 1898.

Ksemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM Press, 1969.

Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. Harper's New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Henry Chadwick. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Lake, Kirsopp and Silva Lake. An Introduction to the New Testament. London: Christophers, 1938.

Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

Leaney, A. R. C. The Letters of Peter and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Lightfoot, J. B. and J. R. Harmer, translators. The Apostolic Fathers. 2^nd edition. Edited and Revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by R. V. G. Tasker, vol. 5. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.

________. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1978.

________. 1 Peter. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Edited by Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1991.

Martin, R. A. and John H. Elliott. James, I-II Peter/Jude. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Roy A. Harrisville, Jack Dean Kingsbury and Gerhard A. Krodel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982.

Martin, Troy W. Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. Vol. 131. Edited by David L. Peterson and Pheme Perkins. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971.

________. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Michaels, J. Ramsay. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 49. Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988.

Miller, Donald G. On This Rock: A Commentary on First Peter. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1993.

Morrison, C. D. The Powers That Be. Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7. Studies in Biblical Theology. Vol. 29. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Moulton, James Hope and Wilbert Francis Howard. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Volume II: Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1929.

Munro, Winsome. Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and in 1 Peter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Edited by R. McL. Wilson and Margaret E. Thrall. Vol. 45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Perrin, Norman and Dennis C. Duling. The New Testament: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Edited by Robert Ferm. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.

Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1964.

Robert, A. and A. Feuillet. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Patrick W. Skehan, Edward P. Arbez, Kathryn Sullivan, Lawrence J. Dannemiller, Edward F. Siegman, John P. McCormick and Martin R. P. McGuire. New York: Desclee Company, 1965.

Schutter, William L. Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum neuen Testament 2. Reihe 30. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989.

Selby, Donald J. Introduction to the New Testament: The Word Became Flesh. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1971.

Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter. London: MacMillan & Company, 1947.

Sherwin-White, A. S. Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Stibbs, Alan M. The First Epistle General of Peter. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by R.V.G. Tasker. Grand Rapids: The Tyndale Press, 1959.

Theissen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955.

Thurn, Lauri. Argument and Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Vol. 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

________. The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter: With Special Regard to Ambiguous Questions. bo Akademis Frlag: bo Academy Press, 1990.

Weiss, Bernhard. A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by A. J. K. Davidson. Vol. 1. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1887.

Whiston, William, translator. The Works of Josephus. Revised edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

Yonge, C. D., translator. The Works of Philo. Revised edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

Zahn, Theodore. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by John Moore Trout, William Arnot Mather, Louis Hodous, Edward Strong Worcester, William Hoyt Worrell and Rowland Backus Dodge. Vols. 1-3. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications, 1953.

Essays

Bammel, Ernst. "Romans 13." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. 365-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Blum, Edwin A. "1 Peter." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 12. 207-54. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Bruce, F. F. "Render to Caesar." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, 249-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Elliott, John H. "The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research." In the NABPR Special Study Series, vol. 9. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. 3-16. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986.

________. "1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch." In the NABPR Special Study Series, vol. 9. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. 61-78. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Peter and Jude." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Roy B. Zuck. 437-71. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lohse, Eduard. "Parenesis and Kerygma in 1 Peter." In the NABPR Special Study Series, vol. 9. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. 37-59. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986.

Longenecker, Richard N. "The Acts of the Apostles." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9. 205-573. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

________. "New Testament Social Ethics for Today." In Understanding Pauline Ethics. Edited by Brian S. Rosner, 337-50. Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1995.

Mott, S. C. "Civil Authority." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 141-43. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Reasoner, M. "Citizenship, Roman and Heavenly." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 139-41. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Sylva, Dennis. "The Critical Exploration of 1 Peter." In the NABPR Special Study Series, vol. 9. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. 17-36. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986.

Talbert, Charles H. "Once Again: The Plan of 1 Peter." In the NABPR Special Study Series, vol. 9. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. 141-151. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986.

Articles

Austad, Torleiv. "Attitudes towards the State in Western Theological Thinking." Themelios 16 (Oct/Nov 1990): 18-22.

Balch, D. L. "Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority: I Peter 2:11-3:12." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39 (July 1984): 161-73.

Bammel, E. "The Commands in I Peter II. 17." New Testament Studies 11 (July 1965): 279-81.

Brooks, Oscar S. "1 Peter 3:21—The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle." Novum Testamentum 16 (October 1974): 290-305.

Bruce, F. F. "Paul and the 'Powers That Be'." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 66 (Spring 1984): 78-96.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Christian's Political Responsibility According to the New Testament." Scottish Journal of Theology 15 (1962): 176-92.

Culpepper, Alan. "God's Righteousness in the Life of His People." Restoration Quarterly 73 (Fall 1976): 451-63.

Dijkman, J. H. L. "1 Peter: A Later Pastoral Stratum?" New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 265-71.

Emslie, B. L. "The Methodology of Proceeding From Exegesis to an Ethical Decision." Neotestamentica 19 (1985): 87-91.

France R. T. "Liberation in the New Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 58 (January 1986): 3-23.

Goldstein, H. "Die politischen Parnesen in 1 Peter 2 und Rm 13." Bibel Leben 14 (1973): 88-104.

Grant, W. J. "Citizenship and Civil Obedience." The Expository Times 54 (September 1943): 180, 81.

Hemer, C. J. "The Address of 1 Peter." The Expository Times 89 (May 1978): 239-43.

James, Stephen A. "Divine Justice and the Retributive Duty of Civil Government." Trinity Journal 6 (Autumn 1985): 199-210.

Kennard, Douglas W. "Petrine Redemption: Its Meaning and Extent." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (December 1987): 399-405.

Krodel, Gerhard. "Church and State in the New Testament." Dialog 15 (Winter 1976): 21-8.

Lgasse, S. "La soumission aux autorits d'aprs 1 Pierre 2. 13-17: Version spcifique d'une parnse traditionelle," New Testament Studies 34 (July 1988): 378-96.

Meeks, Wayne A. "Understanding Early Christian Ethics." Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (January 1986): 3-11.

Moule, C. F. D. "The Nature and Purpose of 1 Peter." New Testament Studies 3 (1956, 57): 1-11.

Refoule, F. "Soumission et liberte." Vie Spirituelle 690 (1990): 331-42.

Rodriguez, R. Lugo. "El verbo 'Hypotassein' y la parenesis social de 1 Pe 2, 11-17." Efemerides Mexicana 9 (1991): 57-70.

Romaniuk, K. "Il Cristiano e l'autorita civile in Romani 13, 1-7." Revista Biblica 27 (1979): 261-69.

Russel, Ronald. "Eschatology and Ethics in 1 Peter." The Evangelical Quarterly 47 (April-June 1975): 78-84.

Senior D. "The Conduct of Christians in the World (2:11-3:12)." Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 427-38.

Shearier, Jeffrey. "The Ethics of Obedience: A Lutheran Development." Concordia Journal 12 (March 1986): 55-63.

Slaughter, James R. "The Importance of Literary Argument for Understanding 1 Peter." Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 72-91.

Sleeper, C. Freeman. "Political Responsibility according to the New Testament." Novum Testamentum 10 (October 1968), 270-86.

Van Unnik, W. C. "A Classical Parallel to 1 Peter ii.14 and 20." New Testament Studies 2 (1955, 56): 198-202.

Wand, J. W. C. "The Lessons of 1 Peter: A Survey of Recent Interpretation." Interpretation 9 (October 1955): 387-99.

Wilson, James P. "In the Text of 1 Peter ii. 17 is pavnta" timhvsate a Primitive Error for pavnta poihvsate?" The Expository Times 54 (May 1943): 193, 94.

Winter, Bruce W. "The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors. Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2. 14-15." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988): 87-103.

Wright, N. T. "The New Testament and the State." Themelios 16 (Oct/Nov 1990): 11-17.

1 Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 3.

2 Some of those commentators include, Francis W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Basel Blackwell, 1958), 44; Ernst Best, New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 49-62; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn and trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 51, 52 who argues for pseudonymity but not for the simple fact of authority, but rather that the traditions recorded in 1 Peter really do reflect Peter's and Sylvanus' theology. Cf. also William L. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum neuen Testament, vol. 30 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), 7, who decides against authenticity, but only as a working hypothesis in light of the "dominant scholarly opinion."

3 Wayne A. Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 21.

4 Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: MacMillan & Company, 1947), 228. Cf. also Grudem, 1 Peter, 21.

5 In other words, the focus on future glory produces the hope that otherwise the mention of the resurrection would have accomplished. Cf. also Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, The International Critical Commentary, 2^nd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 186, 87, who argues that the term mavrtu" should be translated "eye-witness" and is practically equivalent to ajpovstolo". According to Bigg, "if he meant only fellow-preacher, the word summavrtu" lay ready to his hand." I believe that such a nuance is conveyed by the parallel structure of the two clauses. J. Ramsay Michaels, 1Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 49 (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1988), 280, suggests that since mavrtu" is governed by the same article as sumpresbuvtero", this makes the former "virtually equivalent to the rare suvmmartu", "fellow witness."

6 Thus, Peter's readers were also witnesses of Christ's sufferings which means that the idea of "eye-witness" is ruled out since his readers were probably not there when Christ suffered.

7 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter, ed. Grant R. Osborne, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1991), 161.

8 Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Introduction to the New Testament, ed. Werner Georg Kümmel, trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr., 14^th Rev. ed. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1966), 296.

9 Davids, 1 Peter, 202; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 374, f. n. 29 (2).

10 Best, 1 Peter, 178, 79; Schutter, Hermeneutic, 7.

11 For the dating of this material see, James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 322, 390, 617. Both the Syb. Or. 5 and 2 Baruch are probably from the late and early second centuries A. D. respectively. This means they are slightly later than 1 Peter, but it appears that all these writers are drawing on OT imagery which goes back as far as Daniel (cf. Ps. 137; Is. 13; 43:14; Jeremiah 50, 51; Dan 5:17-31).

12 See Goppelt, 1 Peter, 9-14, for a discussion of the Patristic evidence and the evidence provided by Eusebius concerning the tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome.

13 See Bigg, 1 Peter, 8. He cites general vocabulary, the salutation, 7:4; 9:4; 36:2 and two quotations in 30:2 (1 Pet 5:5) and 49:5 (1 Pet 4:8) as indications of Clement borrowing from 1 Peter. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 62, does not agree with the conclusion of borrowing.

14 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990), 760-62. He cites Bruce M. Metzger, Canon, 200, who says that "in view of the rather extensive use made of 1 Peter by several early writers, both Western and Eastern, it may be, as Zahn and others have supposed, that the list originally mentioned 1 Peter, but through scribal carelessness reference to it was accidentally omitted." A. F. Walls has said the same things in the introduction to Alan M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959), 17. He admits that there is less evidence of the use of 1 Peter by Latin churches than by Greek.

15 Cf. Guthrie, Introduction, 762, who speaks much more confidently of the external evidence. He says, "the very great weight of patristic evidence in favour of Petrine authorship and the absence of any dissentient voices raises so strong a presupposition in favour of the correctness of the claims of the epistle to be Peter's own work that it is surprising that this has been questioned." Concerning the present discussion of the Petrine authorship of 1 Peter, Michaels, 1 Peter, lxii, says "as in the case of most NT books other than the letters of Paul, the discussion of the authorship of 1 Peter is a futile discussion if the purpose is anything approaching absolute certainty." On Peter's martyrdom in Rome, see Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958), 114: "It [the testimony of 1 Clement 5 and Ignatius, Romans 4:3] is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early church, as a fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured."

16 The idea of Babylon carries with it all sorts of connotations, but these are of little interest to us here. The referent is clearly Rome, though the sense is multi-orbed. See Goppelt, 1 Peter, 374, 75; Michaels, 1 Peter, 311.

17 F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 3^rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 47. See also Feine, Behm, Kümmel, Introduction, 297.

18 BAGD, 12.

19 Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 306 and 307, f. n. 13. Cf. also I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R.V.G. Tasker, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 101, who agrees with C. H. Dodd, The interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1954), 82, who says that the two Greek words together, i.e. ajgravmmatoi eijsin kaiV ijdiw`tai, translate a Hebrew phrase which refers to people ignorant of the Jewish Law or Torah. Perhaps this is the case, but in first century Palestine, it is an ignorance that is only relative to the religious leaders. Peter was well acquainted with the OT as Luke's summary of his sermons in Acts reveal (for example, cf. Acts 2:14-36).

20 Guthrie, Introduction, 767.

21 I realize that this creates problems for the authorship of 2 Peter whose Greek is substantially poorer than 1 Peter. However, this is not addressed here as it is only my intention to show the weakness of Beare's argument that Peter could not have written such good Greek.

22 Eccl. Hist. 3. 39. 15. Cf. BAGD, 310 (1); Grudem, 1 Peter, 26, 27. The statement of Papias and its terminology is greatly debated. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 8, understands Papias' comments to be an attempt to give the character and authority of Mark's gospel. Further, Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 1976), 9, says that Papias' statement scarcely secures the existence of an Aramaic 'original gospel'."

23 Beare, 1 Peter, 45, 46.

24 Stibbs, 1 Peter, 25.

25 Cf. Best, 1 Peter, 39-42, 50, 51.

26 Beare, 1 Peter, 28-43.

27 Best, 1 Peter, 39-42, 50, 51. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, Harper's New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), 10, argues that the persecutions underlying 1:1-4:11 are the same as those underlying 4:12ff; they are private and local. This contends for the unity of the book and the need to date it according to some other means. On the unity of the letter concerning the persecutions, see also Goppelt, 1 Peter, 21. Further, C. J. Hemer, "The Address of 1 Peter," The Expository Times 89 (May 1978), 241, who cautions the development of unfounded theories as to questions of background for the letter: "Much happened in the first century of which we have no record."

28 But cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.)

29 Beare, 1 Peter, 49.

30 Cf. Best, 1 Peter, 50.

31 Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, vol. II (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955), 142.

32 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 28-35.

33 Guthrie, Introduction, 774, 75, points out that while there is much in common with Paul, there is nonetheless an absence of such Pauline ideas as justification, law, the new Adam, and the flesh. Peter also adds his own particular doctrines of Christ's descent into Hades.

34 Best, 1 Peter, 52, 53; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 49.

35 Cf. Robert H. Gundry, "'Verba Christi' in 1 Peter: Their Implications Concerning the Authorship of 1 Peter and the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition," NTS 13 (1966, 67), 336-50. Gundry argues that many of the Verba Christi come from contexts in which Peter was involved. Best, 1 Peter, 53, cites Gundry, but reduces the number of possible instances of the words of Christ to one, namely, 2:4. This, he says, is not enough upon which to build a theory. On the Gospel traditions in the letter see also Goppelt, 1 Peter, 33-35.

36 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 9.

37 Ibid., 52, who thinks that the letter may have been written in the second century, but the traditions reflected in the epistle were probably known to have been shaped by Peter and Silvanus. Therein lies the authority of the letter.

38 Beare, 1 Peter, 44.

39 Ibid. Cf. also Goppelt, 1 Peter, 48-53, who finds the arguments against Petrine authorship and Silvanus' authorship to be persuasive enough for him to leave the question open. It is enough for him that the traditions reflect accurate traditions about Jesus and the letter as a whole was undoubtedly accepted on that basis. This is not pure pseudonymity for Goppelt. For him it is likely that the traditions in 1 Peter were forged by Peter and Silvanus and the letter, insofar as it represented those traditions, was passed on in their names.

40 Guthrie, 1011-28. This is an enormous discussion and too detailed for further comment here. Given the problems raised by Guthrie, appealing to pseudonymity does not appear to be a satisfactory approach to account for authorship in the epistles. There is also the suggestion that the letter is anonymous and later attributed to Peter. There is no manuscript evidence for such an interpolation and the theory seems to emerge in large measure due to the perceived problems with pseudonymity.

41 Feine, Behm, Kümmel, Introduction, 298.

42 Grudem, 1Peter, 24.

43 Reike, 1 Peter, 69-71. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, Torch Bible Commentaries, ed. John Marsh and Alan Richardson (London: SCM Press, 1960), 13-16; Davids, 1 Peter, 6; Selwyn, 1 Peter, 9-17; Stibbs, 1 Peter, 25-30.

44 The list of geographical areas has caused some problem for interpreters. Some claim that they refer to ethnic regions (Guthrie, Introduction, 783) and others claim they refer to Roman provinces. It would appear that most commentators (Best, 1 Peter, 15; Davids, 1 Peter, 47; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 3; Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 26; Kelly, 1 Peter, 3; Reicke, 1 Peter, 72, etc.) have settled the issue in favor of Roman provinces; provinces that encompass an area north of the Taurus mountains. For the various views on the ordering of the provinces see, Guthrie, Introduction, 783, 84. The consensus appears to be that the order reflects the route taken by the deliverer of the letter.

45 Schutter, Hermeneutic, 8, 9.

46 Ibid., 11.

47 Guthrie, Introduction, 784.

48 Michaels, 1 Peter, xlv, xlvi. Further questions as to whether the recipients were proselytes, priests, "God-fearers," or Noachians are not relevant for our discussion and answers to which may lie beyond the data at hand. Since the development of these churches would have in all likelihood proceeded by way of the Synagogue in the various cities of the provinces, it is likely that many recipients of 1 Peter were Jewish Christians. According to the information gleaned from 1 Peter, however, the audience appears to be mostly Gentile, not Jewish Christian. See Best, 1 Peter, 19, 20.

49 Cf. Kelly, 1 Peter, 107, who says, "to give practical illustrations of the good actions (ii. 12) required by the gospel, the writer inserts a lengthy passage (ii. 13-iii.12) which consists in the main of a series of short codes of duties, each adopted to a particular class or grouping of persons." See also Beare, 1 Peter, 139; Best, 1 Peter, 112, 13; Davids, 1 Peter, 94-98; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 153.

50 The filling of the Spirit in 5:18 manifests itself in the attitudes and actions outlined in the 5 resultative participles in 5:19-21; the last of these is uJpotassovmenoi. It must be noted that Paul uses uJpokouvw in relation to children and their parents and slaves and their masters. Peter does not talk about children and their parents, but does mention slaves (oijkevtai)and their masters. In this relationship he uses ujpotavssw.

51 Beare, 1 Peter, 137, 38.

52 Biggs, 1 Peter, 137.

53 Edwin A. Blum, "1 Peter," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 232.

54 Kelly, 1 Peter, 105.

55 For the emphasis on 1 Peter 5:12 as holding, in some way, the key to the outline, see Charles H. Talbert, "Once Again: The Plan of 1 Peter," in Perspectives on 1 Peter, NABPR Special Studies Series, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986), 143. There is of course the problem of the unity of the epistle, a unity which is presupposed in my outline. There is not space enough here to enter into that discussion, but the reader is referred to the Introductions by Guthrie and Kümmel. Cf. also C. F. D. Moule, "The Nature and Purpose of 1 Peter," NTS 3 (1956, 57), 1-11. He rejects the idea of an actual baptismal liturgy for 1:3-4:11, but sees the letter as a compilation of two letters sent to two different groups in Asia; one group not yet under duress (1:1-4:11 and 5:12-14), while the other group was suffering persecution (1:1-2:10 and 4:12-5:14).

56 Most of them, like the addition of oujn and fusei ajnqrw. in verse 13; the mevn of verse 14; the uJma" of verse 15, etc. may simply be regarded as scribal attempts to smooth out the text or remove ambiguities. See Michaels, 1 Peter, 121.

57 Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971), 689, 70.

58 J. P. Wilson, "In the Text of 1 Peter ii. 17 is pavnta" timhvsate a Primitive Error for panvta poihvsate? The Expository Times 54 (May 1943), 193, 94.

59 There is no logical connector (e.g. oujn, w{ste) to that which precedes, but the discussion of obedience to civil authorities and demonstrating honor for all men certainly falls under Peter's admonition in 2:11, 12. Thus there is a logical connection between 2:11, 12 and 2:13-17, though it is implicit. We see that such is the case with Paul's segment on the authorities in Romans 13:1-7. There is no logical connector to that which precedes; indeed the switch is so abrupt so as to cause a number of scholars to postulate an interpolation; for example, cf. James Kallas, "Romans xiii. 1-7: An Interpolation," NTS 11 (1965), 365-74.

60 This may refer to his coming for salvation or judgment. Depending on the audience in mind, both are possible. It would seem, based on the fact that the slanders will glorify God, that Peter is here referring to the final judgment.

61 Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 124, who says that "Peter regards the subjection of which he speaks as a matter of choice, not of nature or necessity." It is true that it is a choice, but it is also a necessity; a necessity which is not reduced by the fact that the Christians are ejleuvqeroi (v. 16).

62 Cf. ejlpivsate (1:13); ajgaphvsate (1:22); ejpipoqhvsate (2:2); timhvsate (2:17). Paul uses the term uJpotassevsqw; a present imperative in Romans 13:1.

63 Peter's language in 3:8, 9, 17; 4:15 does not indicate that his readers were guilty of such retaliation, but is only a warning not to do it.

64 This includes 4 participles at 2:18; 3:1, 5, 22. The other two uses are aorist finite imperative verbs.

65 The "one doing the subjection" is not mentioned here. Some have postulated sinful Adam, others Satan, etc. It seems however, that most would agree that God is in view here. See Cranfield, Romans: Shorter Commentary, 196, 97; Dunn, Romans, 471; Fitzmyer, Romans, 508; Harrison, Romans, 93-95; Hendricksen, Romans, 266-68.

66 Gerhard Delling, TDNT, VIII, 40.

67 Cf. Porter, "Romans 13:1-7," 120, 21. He suggests these as other terms Paul could have chosen as well.

68 Cf. George L. Carey, "Biblical-Theological Perspectives on War and Peace," The Evangelical Quarterly 57 (April 1985), 169, who says concerning unconditional obedience to the state: "Paul would have been horrified by such an inference." I think the same could be said of Peter who deliberately disobeyed the authorities (Acts 5:29) when their restrictions interfered with God's revealed will.

69 This, of course, is in keeping with Paul's emphasis as well.

70 Paul's rationale was in line with this, but more specific. He urges obedience to the state, because the state is appointed by God. Both writers indicate that it is the state's job to punish evildoers and praise those who do right. Cf. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 461.

71 Some commentators, due to the strong use of subjection language in the passage seem to imply an obedience to the state which is rendered without question. See Morrison, The Powers that Be, 113. This fails to recognize the import of Mark 12:13-17 (Caesar and God) and the underlying premise in Romans 13, namely, that the state is permitting one to be and live as a Christian.

72 The magistrates (Perhaps these rulers make up part of the eJxousiva Paul is talking about in Romans 13) treated Paul and Silas unlawfully. They violated their own laws by beating a Roman citizen. Paul may have made such an issue out of it in order to protect the Christians in Philippi from any further unnecessary harassment from the authorities, but at the bottom of it lies the just protest of one who was unjustly handled by the state. On Paul's rights as a Roman citizen see Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 274, 75; Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 466, 67.

73 For further comment on the whole issue of the extent of the Christian's responsibility to submit to the state, cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Christian's Political Responsibility according to the New Testament," Scottish Journal of Theology 15 (1962), 181.

74 Cf. Werner Foerster, TDNT III, 1028-35. The same use of the term occurs in the LXX (excluding 1 Esdras 4:53: "and that all who came from Babylon to build (ktivsai) the city should have their freedom."

75 F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St Peter: I.1-II.17 (London: MacMillan and Co., 1898), 139, 40.

76 Bigg, 1 Peter, 139. The interpretation of this phrase, as difficult as it is, is slender ground upon which to argue that Peter "differs widely here from St. Paul" as Bigg tries to do.

77 Beare has confused meaning and referent. While governing authorities might be included in such a phrase, they are not it's meaning.

78 Beare, 1 Peter, 141.

79 Though Beare does not say this explicitly, it is certainly the thrust of his argument.

80 Selwyn, 1 Peter, 172, argues in a similar vein as does Beare, relying almost completely on Classical usage, but does not rule out the divine structuring in all these "fundamental social institutions."

81 Goppelt, 1Peter, 182, 83.

82 Blum, 1 Peter, 233; Cranfield, 1 Peter, 73, 74; Davids, 1 Peter, 98, 99; Donald G. Miller, On This Rock: A Commentary on 1 Peter (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1993) 207; Kelly, 1 Peter, 108; Michaels, 1 Peter, 124.

83 Cranfield, 1 Peter, 73, 74.

84 It would appear from its use in the NT and the LXX that when a Jew thought about ktivsi" he thought about the physical creation apart from man as well. The use of ajnqrwpivnh certainly narrows the focus to just man. See Davids, 1 Peter, 99.

85 Kelly, 1 Peter, 109.

86 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 183, f. n. 19; Michaels, 1 Peter, 124.

87 Though Paul bases submission of women and men on creation theology (e.g. 1 Cor 11:8), such exhortation is attainable now in the light of God's salvific work in Christ (1 Cor 1:4-9, 18; 2:12,6:11). It is the design of creation and more brought back into focus through redemption.

88 Best, 1 Peter, 114, says that "generally in the NT it [i.e. kuvrio"] denotes Christ and only means God in quotations from the OT or in thought dependent on the OT."

89 Cf. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 172.

90 Miller, 1 Peter, 208.

91 Cf. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 183.

92 Selwyn, 1 Peter, 172.

93 Kelly, 1 Peter, 109.

94 Cf. Karl Ludwig Schmidt, TDNT, I, 574-79; Kelly, 1 Peter, 109; Davids, 1 Peter, 100; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 185, f. n. 31. On Herod as a client king, see F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (New York: Doubleday, 1969), 20ff.

95 Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 125.

96 This of course is based on a date before A. D. 64.

97 Cranfield, 1 Peter, 75.

98 BAGD, 898, III, 1, b.

99 BAGD, 840, 41, 2, a.

100 BAGD, 343, 2.

101 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 185, f. n. 31.

102 Cf. M. Reasoner, "Political Systems," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL; Intervarsity Press, 1993), 720. The term for proconsul in the New Testament is ajnqupavto" (cf. Acts 13:7) and for procurator is hJgemw`n.

103 Best, 1 Peter, 114: Peter was not "aware of this distinction and assumes that all are sent by the emperor." This is hardly believable for a person who traveled through the empire. It is not Peter's point to delineate in detail Roman political structures. He is simply referring to governors as examples of those who ultimately come from the emperor and are to be obeyed. There is no real grounds in the Peter's generalization for an attempt at a later date for the book; a date in the Flavian period, for example. Cf. Beare, 1 Peter, 142.

104 Best, 1 Peter, 114.

105 Hort, 1 Peter, 141.

106 Cf. Beare, 1 Peter, 142; Bigg, 1 Peter, 140; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 185.

107 Michaels, 1 Peter, 126.

108 It is clear that Luke has in mind divine revenge, but it will come through those nation's armies that attack Jerusalem. See I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 772, 73. See also Romans 12:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and Hebrews 10:30 for more on God's ejkdivkhsi".

109 BAGD, 397, says the term can refer to an evil-doer, criminal or sorcerer. It is found twice in the LXX (Proverbs 12:4; 24:19). In these two instances it refers to men who commit various kinds of crimes and evils against other people. It is interesting that immediately after Prov 24:19, 21 where the evildoer is referred to, the next verse enjoins fear of God and the King. The term occurs in the NT only in 1 Peter 2:12, 14 and 4:15. It seems that Peter has general evil in mind; evil that is punishable by the state. Bu this is not to suppose that the term is restricted to criminal, subversive activity as Reicke, 1 Peter, 95, seems to suggest. C. Freeman Sleeper, "Political Responsibility according to 1 Peter," Novum Testamentum (October 1968), 282, has demonstrated a broader range of meaning in Peter's use of the term.

110 The verb occurs 5 times in the LXX: Num 10:32; Judges 17:13; Tobit 12:13; 2 Macc 1:2 and Zeph 1:12.

111 The praise spoken of in verse 14 could be seen as the praise of God in the light of the Christian's good deeds in the civic arena (cf. Matt 5:16), but this does not appear to be Peter's intention. It is the government who will praise the Christian as a model citizen.

112 Other similar conceptions of the state and its role in punishing evil doers and upholding those who do good occurs in Philo (Quod Est De Legatione Ad Gaium, 7): "for Law is made up of two things, the honour of the good and the chastisement of the wicked." Cf. also The Letter of Aristeas 291, 92: "'What is the most important feature in a kingdom?' To this he [i.e. the king] replied, 'To establish the subjects continually at peace, and guarantee that they obtain justice quickly in verdicts. The sovereign brings about these aims when he hates evil and loves good and holds in high esteem the saving of human life'" (italics mine).

113 W. C. van Unnik, "A Classical Parallel to 1 Peter ii. 14 and 20," New Testament Studies 2 (1955, 56), 200, 201.

114 Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 12; Best , 1 Peter, 114.

115 Cf. Beare, I Peter, 143. See also Bruce W. Winter's excellent article, "The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2.14-15," JSNT 34 (October 1988), 87-103. He argues that it was common for the state to recognize benefactors as evidence from the inscriptions demonstrate.

116 Michaels, 1 Peter, 127.

117 BDF, *456, 1; Goppelt, 1Peter, 186; Hort, 1 Peter,142.

118 But see Matthew 18:14: ou{tw" oujk e[stin qevlhma e[mprosqen tou' patroV" uJmw'n tou' ejn oujranoi'" i{na ajpovlhtai e}n tw'n mikrw'n touvtwn. Here, in a very similar expression, i.e. ou{tw" oujk e[stin qevlhma, the adverb looks ahead in the clause. Hort, 1 Peter, 143, seems certain that it is retrospective here. But the following clause seems to indicate exactly the will of God.

119 Cf. Bigg, 1 Peter, 141.

120 Hort, 1 Peter, 143.

121 Beare, 1 Peter, 143; Best, I Peter,115. But see Goppelt, 1 Peter, 186, who argues according to usage in Matt 18:14, John 6:40 and 1 Thes 4:3 that the adverb does not look back, but forward.

122 For a very helpful survey of the idea of qelhvma tou` qeou` in the New Testament, see Gottlob Schrenk, TDNT, III, 55-59 where he discusses Christ as the doer of the divine will, the will of God as the basis for salvation and the new life of believers and the divine will.

123 It also occurs 3 times in the LXX (Deut 25:4; 4 Macc 1:35 and Sus 60). See also 1 Clement 59:2.

124 Cf. W. Harold Mare, "1 Corinthians, " in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 288.

125 We may say then that in 1 Peter the reference to thVn ajgnwsivan can be filled out to mean ignorant accusations or slander. This is what Peter wants silenced. See Davids, 1 Peter, 101, f. n. 7.

126 Cf. Georg Bertram, TDNT, IX, 225.

127 Notice also that he refers to them as ajnqrwvpwn which has a consistently negative nuance in 1 Peter. Men are the ones who rejected the corner stone (2:4); are characterized by sinful lusts (4:2) and are judged accordingly (4:6). The only possibly positive reference is in 3:4, but this does not refer to actual men per se, but to personhood. Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 160.

128 Michaels, 1 Peter, 128.

129 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 188, f. n. 46; Selwyn, 1 Peter, 173; Hort, 1 Peter, 145.

130 Kelly, 1 Peter, 111.

131 Michaels, 1 Peter, 128.

132 Davids, 1 Peter, 102.

133 See also Douglas W. Kennard, "Petrine Redemption: Its Meaning and Extent," JETS (December 1987), 399, 40.

134 The wJ" (and the participial phrase) is functioning by way of contrast here.

135 Ex 26:14; 39:20; 2 Sam 17:19; Job 19:29; 1 Pet 2:16.

136 Cf. BAGD, 294.

137 BAGD, 398, 99.

138 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 188.

139 Beare, 1 Peter, 144. This is built on the premise that pavnta" does not include God.

140 Selwyn, 1Peter, 174.

141 See also Goppelt, 1 Peter, 190.

142 E. Bammel, "The Commands of 1 Peter 2:17," NTS 11 (July 1965), 279-81. See also Kelly, 1 Peter, 112, who says that the second imperative has a richer content than the first and the third than the fourth. Beare, 1 Peter, 144, also comments on the aorist saying that it probably refers to definite action, not merely an attitude of respect, but also of concomitant words and deeds.

143 Cf. Johannes Schneider, TDNT, VIII, 178-80.

144 Cf. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 189.

145 Beare, 1 Peter, 145, says the sense in 1 and 4 Maccabees is not collective as it is here in 1 Peter. Therefore, there is the possibility that Peter took it from this source and applied it in a new way to Christians.

146 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 189, f. n. 53. See also John H. Elliott, "1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch," in the NABPR Special Study Series, vol. 9, ed. Charles H. Talbert. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986), 61-78 for a discussion of the social situation of Peter's readers and the resulting purpose for Peter's admonitions.

147 Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 131.

148 Cf. Horst Balz, TDNT, IX, 214, 15.

149 Cf. Davids, 1 Peter, 104.

The Interpretation of Parables: Exploring “Imaginary Gardens with Real Toads”

Related Media

Introduction¹

“Nowhere else in the world’s literature has such immortality been conferred on anonymity.”²

Throughout most of the church’s history it has allegorized the parables. The classic example of this, though we might produce many others, is Augustine’s (AD 350-430) treatment of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37):

…the wounded man stands for Adam; Jerusalem, the heavenly city from which he has fallen; the thieves, the devil who strips Adam of his immortality and leads him to sin; the priest and Levite, the Old Testament Law and ministry which was unable to cleanse and save anyone; the good Samaritan who binds the wounds, Christ who forgives sin; oil and wine; hope and stimulus to work, the animal, the incarnation; the inn, the church; and the innkeeper, the apostle Paul.³

We stand in amazement wondering if Augustine has left any stone unturned. Obviously, such allegorizing has disastrous affects on the practical authority of the Bible for its message becomes completely obscured and there is no reasonable method whereby we can adjudicate between competing interpretations. Thankfully, lest these small, but great stories of Christ be lost to the church, there has been some progress in parable study since then.

A (Extremely) Brief History of Parable Interpretation

Augustine’s fanciful, and certainly incorrect interpretation(s) of the parable of the Good Samaritan led many commentators in a post-Enlightenment (i.e., conscious of the historical-critical method) setting to argue for two important correctives. First, the parables are not allegories, from which highly suspicious and dubious readings can claim authorial intention and second, parables convey only one main point.

Though writers had criticized the allegorical approach before him, Adolf Jülicher’s two volume work, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu⁴, denounced the allegorical approach and justifiably brought an end to it. He argued that the parables were not allegories and that whenever allegory did occur it was the addition of the evangelists, not the authentic teaching of the historical Jesus; Jesus only sought to convey a general religious maxim through simple, straightforward comparison (cf. the parable of the sower). Thus Jülicher’s work served to correct a gross error in one direction, but as it turns out—and as is often the case—it swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.

Thus, in the following years and into the early 20^th century Jülicher’s work was severely criticized on many fronts. Many found his definition of metaphor inadequate and his understanding of allegory incorrect. Further, a more devastating critique involved his arguments about the nature of parables. Many scholars recognized that his view of Biblical parables was much more dependent on ideas from Greek rhetoric than on examples from Hebrew literature where allegory was much more common. Finally, it was obvious that for all he had done to put an end to fanciful interpretation, he had confused the literary device of allegory with the hermeneutic of allegorizing; the two are not the same and thus Jülicher’s work stood in need of correction.⁵

Parable research in the 20^th century (i.e., 1930-1970) has been dominated by the work of C. H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias. They responded to Jülicher’s attempt to reduce the parables to general maxims and instead sought through the textual form of the parable to reconstruct a likely original form and historical situation for a parable. The desire to construct an original form of a parable continues still, though two new developments have emerged.

First, with the advent of a reader-response approach to scripture—e.g., the phenomenological approach of R. W. Funk and J. D. Crossan—there has been much more attention paid to the original impact and “surprising reversal” of the parable. Though evangelicals will find much useful material here, the presuppositions with which Funk and Crossan approach the text are at odds with scripture’s self claims and evangelical understandings of scripture’s divine inspiration.

Second, Dan O. Via, Jr., following the work of Murray Krieger, Northrop Frye, and Philip Wheelwright, has pursued a different emphasis in parable research and interpretation. Referred to as the aesthetic-rhetorical approach, it is less concerned with the particular historical situation in which the various parables developed, but rather in the aesthetic qualities of the parables themselves. Via sees their internal pattern as a clue to their interpretation and uses Aristotelian categories of comic (rising) and tragic (falling) plot lines to elucidate their meaning.⁶

The Nature of Jesus’ Parables

The number of Jesus’ parables varies between 45 and 60 depending how one classifies a parable. In any case, they represent a great deal of his teaching, perhaps up to one-third. Therefore, it behooves us to study them diligently and above all respond to him through them.

The term parable (mashal [OT], parabole [NT]) is used several ways in Scripture and in Jewish intertestamental literature. It can refer to a proverb (1 Sam 24:13), a satire or taunt (Ps 44:11), a riddle (Ps 49:4), a figurative saying (Mark 7:14-17), an extended simile (Matt 13:33), story parable (Matt 25:1-13), an example parable (Matt 18:23-25), and even an allegory (Judges 9:7-20; Mark 4:3-9, 13-20).⁷ While there are many interesting differences between these literary devices, there is a common thread that in various ways runs through them all: they all involve the language and literary device of comparison. Something known is compared to something unknown in order to give understanding of the latter.

Therefore, since parables in general, and Jesus’ in particular, are by their nature limited or extended similes and metaphors, we can classify them formally in five different ways:⁸ (1) simple simile (Matt 13:33; Luke 13:20-21); (2) simple metaphor (Matt 7:6); (3) extended simile (Matt 20:1-16); (4) extended metaphor (Luke 15:11-32), and (5) examples stories (Luke 10:30-37; 12:17-21; 16:19-31; 18:9-14).⁹ Example stories are really not similes or metaphors, but Luke nonetheless calls all four in his gospel, parables.

It is indeed now recognized by many scholars that parables are indeed allegories, just as a metaphor is an allegory “in little.”¹⁰ These may be simple allegories as in the case of Matthew 13:31: “the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed…” or more extended as in the case of Mark 4:13-20: “the sower stands for…these are the ones who…etc.” Therefore, it is also recognized by many evangelical NT scholars that as allegories, these stories often relay more than one main idea (or more than one important point, though any parable’s overall message can be summarized), corresponding at times to the characters in the parable, though this is not always the case.¹¹ They are not, however, highly developed allegories akin to Bunyan’s, Pilgrim’s Progress where every point and detail in the text stands for something else.¹² Rather, they are allegories of a special sort, loaded with realism and aimed at eliciting a response. This realism, their context in the Gospels and the necessary relationship they sustain to Christ’s other teachings, must be kept in mind in their interpretation.

Jesus’ parables, though utilizing a literary form for fiction, possess a realism that cannot be mistaken; they are pervaded with first century Palestinian characters, settings, and ideas. Stock images from the Semitic world crowd these stories—images of farmers, fisherman, crops, fish, water, pearls, wheat, treasures, workers, landowners, masters, slaves, peasants, young maidens, sons, and kings and as such the characters, including Lazarus in Luke 16 (the only character explicitly named), function as universal types. “Nowhere else in the world’s literature has such immortality been conferred on anonymity.” They also evidence plot development, conflict, foil, and suspense. Ryken makes the interesting point, in light of the secular realism in the parables (and the fact that they do not focus on religion per se or religious leaders), that they will not allow any two-world view that makes a hard and fast divide between the spiritual from the earthly. “In the world of the parables it is in everyday experience that people make their spiritual decisions and that God’s grace works.”¹³

A Survey of Jesus’ Parables

Markan Parables	Mark	Matthew	Luke
The Bridegroom’s Friends	2:19-20	9:15	5:33-39
Unshrunk Cloth	2:21	9:16	5:36
New Wine	2:22	9:17	5:37-39
Binding the Strong Man	3:20-29	12:22-32	11:14-23
Soils	4:1-20	13:1-23	8:4-18
The Lamp	4:21-25
Seed Growing Secretly	4:26-29
Mustard Seed	4:30-32	13:31-32	13:18-19
Wicked Tenants	12:1-12	21:33-46	20:9-19
Budding Fig Tree	13:28-32	24:32-36	21:29-33
Doorkeeper’s Watch	13:34-36		12:35-38

Matthean Parables		Matthew
Good and Bad Fruit		7:15-20
Wheat and Tares		13:24-30, 36-43
Dragnet		13:47-50
Hidden Treasure		13:44
Merchant and Fine Pearls		13:45-46
Wicked Slave		18:21-35
Laborers in the Vineyard		20:1-16
The Two Sons		21:28-32
The Wise and Foolish Maidens		25:1-13
The Sheep and Goats		25:31-46

Lukan Parables			Luke
The Two Debtors			7:40-50
The Good Samaritan			10:25-37
The Friend at Midnight			11:5-8 (cf. 9-13)
The Rich Fool			12:13-21
Barren Fig Tree			13:6-9
The Tower Builder			14:28-30
The Warrior King			14:31-33
The Lost Sheep			15:1-7
The Lost Coin			15:8-10
The Prodigal Son (“two sons)			15:11-32
The Unjust Steward			16:1-13
The Rich Man and Lazarus			16:19-31
The Lowly Servant			17:7-10
The Unjust Judge			18:1-8
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector			18:9-14

Parallels in Matt/Luke	Matthew	Luke
Wise and Foolish Builders	7:24-27	6:46-49
The Narrow Door/Gate	7:13-14	13:23-27
Leaven	13:33	13:20-21
The Lost Sheep	18:12-14	15:1-7
The Wedding Banquet	22:1-14	14:15-24
The Thief in the Night	24:42-44	12:39-40
Faithful and Unfaithful Steward	24:45-51	12:42-46
The Talents	25:14-30	19:12-27

Johannine Parables	John
The Good Shepherd	10:1-18 (cf. Matt18:12-14; Luke 15:1-7)
The True Vine	15:1-8

Principles for Interpreting Parables

There are several principles to remember and implement in the study of the parables.

First, note the literary setting of the parable in the gospel. This can provide clues to the overall interpretation of the parable, especially its mood and affective force.

Second, note the wording, structure, general progression, plot progress, and suspense. Remember these are stories and need to be read as such. In this connection it is helpful to note any changes in the same parable in another gospel. The chart above lists all the parables and their parallels.

Third, read the parables in their original historical situation first. Therefore, nothing should be read out of them that is not consistent with the customs, etc. employed in them and certainly no later reading of theology or church experience should be read into them. In other words, no global or particular interpretation should be given any “air time” that would not have been understandable to those to whom these parables were first addressed by Jesus or later communicated by the evangelists. In this way we preserve the distinction between authorial intent (author’s intended meaning) and significance (meaning to me).

Fourth, note the main characters/things in the parable and any parallels and or contrasts between them. The main characters are often clues as to the main points being asserted.

Fifth, recognize that there are two audiences being addressed by the parables. There is first the audience to whom Jesus originally spoke, e.g., the Scribes and Pharisees, and the audience of the early church to whom the evangelists addressed their writings. A different audience signifies at slightly different functions for the parables and thus little different emphasis in interpretation.

Sixth, avoid over-allegorizing and note carefully what occurs at the end of a parable as a (the) clue to the meaning of the parable. This is called the rule of “end stress.”

Seventh, seek to place the teaching of the parable in the overall ministry of Jesus and his teaching as a whole. In this way, it will be seen that most of his parables deal with the kingdom of God, either its inauguration or consummation, and discipleship within the present phase of the kingdom in expectation of the consummation.

Eighth, through continued prayer, meditation, and seeking, discern the meaning of the parable for the original hearers and its significance for you. State the major theme and variations in sentences. Prayerfully respond.

A Look at Some Parables

IA. The Parable of the Soils—Mark 4:1-34 (pars. Matt 13:1-9; 18-23; Luke 8:4-18)

1B. Literary Context

We can show the literary context and significant connections through charting a section. If you refer to the outlines of the Synoptic Gospels in the appendix, you can easily view the broad context of this parable. Here’s what it might look like on a chart:

2B. Characters/Things and What They Stand For

3B. Historical Details

In Palestinian culture at this time, sowing probably preceded plowing so that it is incorrect to view the sower as hopelessly inept, fumbling as it were, and somehow unable to deliver seed to good soil. He simply scattered and plowed later. But even if this was not the case, as some argue, it is not Jesus’ point to emphasize methods of sowing, but on different kinds of soil. There were paths that were trampled down and hard; there was rocky soil where limestone lay immediately beneath a layer of topsoil; there was soil overgrown by weeds and thorns (very common), and thankfully, there was good soil.

4B. General Progression, Plot Conflict, and Suspense

1C. Opening/Closing

Notice that the parable opens with the command to “listen” and “see” (4:3a) and ends with an interesting and closely related idea: “He who has ears, let him hear.” Though the parables often use common agrarian imagery, beware lest you doze off and miss the point!

2C. Suspense

After the seed is planted, then comes the wait…that seemingly endless period of time in which the farmer bites his knuckles and prays for the right combination of rain and sun. Herein lies the tension and suspense in Jesus’ story. Will there be a harvest? In our culture most of us go to the supermarket, but such super-stores were not available to the ancients. The growth of the crop was essential to the life and welfare of the family. There was always the question of whether there would be a harvest or not. Today’s farmers understand this tension and anxiety.

3C. Progress and Plot Conflict

This story has no well developed “plot” as we find, for example in the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt 21:33-44). Nonetheless, there is conflict which mounts as we move through the parable; initially it seems that there will be no crop, because there is no good soil. At the very end, however, our hope is restored—finally there’s soil in which an abundant harvest can flourish. The kingdom of God (and his Servant), though being misunderstood by so many, will nonetheless find a bountiful harvest in the hearts of some.

5B. End Stress

The principle of “end stress” tells us that what comes at the end of a parable is often very significant to the meaning of the parable as a whole; it provides a lens through which to correctly view the parable. This, of course, is the case here. Jesus ends the parable with this comment: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” In the Bible, this expression is found only on the lips of Jesus and it always relates to our need to be careful how we listen to Jesus (Matt 11:15; 13:9;, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29). We need to listen with spiritually sensitive hearts, waiting and willing to be instructed no matter what the cost. Only then are we good soil.

6B. Unclear Statements or Exaggeration

Crops totaling thirty or sixty or one hundred times what was sown were not uncommon, but one hundred represents a very good crop indeed. The point is: some people really experience the blessing of the kingdom.

7B. Statement of General Theme and Variations

The major theme in this parable has to do with how a person listens and responds to the message of the kingdom (i.e., the word). There are several related variations on this theme. First, God sows his seed of the kingdom among a variety of people. As Mark said in 1:1-15, Jesus has come to proclaim the good news of God. Second, the parable has much to say about the response to the message of the kingdom. The three types of soil represent those who through hard (or indifferent) hearts, superficial and fearful hearts, or worrisome and distracted hearts evidence less than saving faith in the gospel. They will not participate in the kingdom. But, like the good soil, there will be those who respond with genuine faith that leads to obedience and fruitfulness. But even among those who have rightly responded to the message, there will be degrees of right response. Some will yield minimal fruit, some more, and finally some who will “sell the farm,” as it were, to possess the blessings of the kingdom (cf. Mark 10:28-31). A final theme we note, is the fact that at no time is the quality of the seed brought into question; there is no need to change the gospel message (Gal 1:6-9).

We must also point out the importance of this parable for understanding other parables. This parable is about various responses to the message of the kingdom and Jesus gently rebukes the disciples for their obtuseness. If a person is unable to understand this parable, then Jesus says they will not be able to understand any parable (Mark 4:13). Why? Well, the reason seems to be that as this parable stresses entrance into the kingdom, failure to understand it means a person is on the outside, and being on the outside renders them unable to comprehend other parables that talk about kingdom life from the inside. In the narrative, those with Jesus and the twelve are on the inside, but the religious leaders and the crowds are on the outside; they have failed to respond to the Servant’s message because they cannot tolerate the Servant.

But while the parable stresses entrance into the kingdom, it also teaches us about life in the kingdom. There were three levels of response represented by the good soil. So even as Christians we too must be exceedingly careful how we listen to the teachings of Jesus. If you persist in a hard heart toward God, Satan does have the power to snatch the word of God being sown in your heart. Indwelling sin, or as Owen referred to it—“the remainders of indwelling sin in believers”—can harden our hearts toward God and blunt our spiritual receptivity (Heb 3:13). We must be careful to keep an open heart toward God.¹⁴

Further, we need to make sure that the word is sown deep in our heart so that when tough times come, we will not abandon it (Joshua 1:8). One key way to achieve this, in cooperation with the Spirit, is to meditate regularly on Scripture. Then our hearts will not be as the rocky soil in which the seed found no root. Touch times, by the good providence of God, will come. They come as divinely sent friends to uncover what is in our hearts. Now is the time to prepare for visitation.

Finally, in a consumer driven culture, we need to be very careful about having the third kind of heart Jesus spoke about, i.e., a heart that’s enmeshed in “the cares of the world, the delight in riches, and the desire for other things” (Mark 4:19). This kind of heart chokes out God’s word and makes it unfruitful. Riches can shrivel a heart in a hurry; giving freely can liberate the heart so enmeshed.

8B. Desired Response (Then and Now)

Jesus stressed the importance of listening to him, and listening well! He wanted the religious leaders, the crowd, his followers, family, and the Twelve to listen very closely to what he was saying. What does this mean for us? It certainly entails coming to him through the Bible with humble and contrite hearts and accepting whatever it is he wants to tell us. There are no qualifications on true discipleship. We must deal with the sin in our heart before God, yield ourselves completely to his will and desires, resist sin, and listen to his voice (cf. 1 Peter 2:1-3; James 1:19-21). As 4:15 makes it clear that Satan will seek to steal the word from our hearts. We must be alert (1 Peter 5:8). What kind of heart do you have? Read Jesus’ interpretation of the parable again and ask God show you where your heart is. Ask for grace to listen.

One final point. Did you notice that in none of the synoptic accounts of this parable is the sower mentioned by name, though we know, of course, that it’s God or Christ? But the fact that he is not mentioned by name and that Jesus explains the parable to the disciples and others, expresses an implied universalism, that is, that anyone who is in the kingdom can sow the message of the kingdom. Now I have a question. Do you expect to hear from God through people? God speaks in a variety of ways, at the most inconvenient times, through the unlikeliest of people—not only our pastor—but the question is, “Am I listening?” Beyond the idea of a sower, God also speaks through circumstances, but again the question is, “Am I listening?” God speaks through our spouses, children, family, friends, etc. “He who ears to hear, let him hear!”

IIA. The Parable of the Tenants—Matthew 21:33-44 (pars. Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)

1B. Literary Context

If we look at our outline of Matthew in the appropriate appendix we can see at a glance that this parable is given at a time of intense conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. It is interesting to note that the parable is set in the “temple-conflict scene” in all three gospels, following the triumphal entry, temple cleansing, and the questioning of Jesus’ authority. The are more literary connections as the following chart highlights:

2B. Characters/Things and What They Stand For

Many of the various characters in the Parable of the Tenants stand for specific, real life personages. The landowner is God; the vineyard, Israel; the tenants, the religious leaders; the servants, the prophets; the son, Christ.

3B. Historical Details

There are several historical details in this passage that call for comment and reflection. This is where a good Bible dictionary and/or a commentary is very helpful (see bibliography). First, we need to talk about the general attitudes and practices of landowners in ancient Israel and the meaning of the wall, winepress, and watchtower. Besides this, there is the business practices of landowners and how they rented out their vineyards. Second, it would be nice to know the general tendencies of tenants in this situation. Third, why does Matthew change the order of the events in 21:39 (cf. Mark 12:8; Luke 20:15)? This question, of course, presupposes Markan priority.¹⁵

4B. General Progression, Plot Conflict, Suspense

5B. Unclear Statements or Exaggeration

What is the meaning of the expressions about stones in 21:44? This is an important passage, yet the imagery seems a bit confusing at first.

6B. End Stress

The climax to this story occurs in 21:39 where we are utterly horrified to find the tenants conspiring to kill the son, which crime they then willfully perpetrate. Our anger is deeply aroused. Everything within us cries out for justice, just like it did with the religious leaders when they first heard it. We note the irony in 21:41 when the religious authorities indict themselves: “he [the landowner] will bring those wretches to a wretched end!”

The principle of end stress, for the parable proper, falls on verse 40 and the rhetorical question Jesus asks. Therefore, this parable is about the judgment of the religious leaders for being treacherous tenants, cruel and abusive, and for their ultimate failure to receive the son and humbly submit to his authority. The results, laid out in 21:42-44 is that they will be crushed (utterly condemned) and the kingdom given over to a generation producing its fruit.

7B. Statement of General Theme and Variations

The overall theme seems to be that God will judge those leaders in his kingdom who are faithless toward him and treacherous toward his people. Related ideas in the parable include: (1) God is incredibly gracious as exemplified in his care for the vineyard and patient as evidenced in his repeatedly sending servants even though they were brutally treated. But, there will come a time when his patience will run out and judgment will fall; (2) one’s response to Christ is key to one’s participation in the kingdom; (3) God will raise up new leaders to shepherd his people when existing leaders abandon him.

8B. Desired Response (Then and Now)

The parable speaks directly to leaders who shepherd God’s people. As leaders we must strive to stay close to the Lord and seek his will ahead of our own popularity and prestige. We must carefully guard our hearts in respect to our love for Christ and his people and treat them as he commands us to. But the parable also speaks to those in the body who are not leaders per se. They too must remember that their response to Christ is key to their participation in his kingdom.

IIIA. Another Parable of Your Choice (see appendix)

Summary of the Theology of the Parables: The Kingdom of God

The Purpose of the Parables—A Look at Matthew 13:13; Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10

Matthew

Mark

Luke

^13:10 Then the disciples came to him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” ^13:11 He replied, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but they have not…^:13 For this reason I speak to them in parables: although they see they do not see, and although they hear they do not hear nor do they understand.

^4:10 When he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. ^4:11 He said to them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables,

^4:12 so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven.”

^8:9 Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant. ^8:10 He said, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that although they see they may not see, and although they hear they may not understand.

The God Who Summons

The parables teach that God is sovereign in his world and in the salvation of men. He summons people to believe as he graciously sows his kingdom seed, working patiently with people to move them toward response, bearing with them in their sin, misery, and waywardness, and evidencing unexpected and extreme grace. In the end, however, he will judge men according to their response to his messiah and their faithfulness with the talents he has given them.

The Proper Response to God’s Summons

The proper response to the gospel in the parables is total. These stories call forth total faith leading to a total commitment of oneself to God. Any attitude, activity or possession must be set aside in the interests of the kingdom. In this way there is joyful participation and an expectant hope that the kingdom will grow and more and more people will come to share in its fruit.

The Fate of Those Who Do Not Respond Properly

All men are commanded to respond to God by producing the fruit of the kingdom. For those who reject God’s king and his kingdom there will come a day of great distress and irrevocable suffering. The stress in the parables is on God’s justice in bringing about his wrath, man’s stubborn refusal to submit to his kingship and therefore his rightful condemnation, and continued hope for people to repent.

Appendix One: Outline of the Synoptic Gospels

Matthew: Jesus as King

IA. The King Arrives (1:1-2:23)

1B. Genealogy and Birth (1:1-25)

2B. Worship, Opposition, Rescue, and Return to Nazareth (2:1-23)

IIA. The King Preaches the Gospel of His Kingdom (3:1-7:29)

1B. Narrative: Preparation for Ministry in the Kingdom (3:1-4:25)

2B. Discourse: Righteousness in the Kingdom (5:1-7:29)

IIIA. The King Extends His Kingdom (8:1-11:1)

1B. Narrative: A Demonstration of the Power of the King and His Kingdom (8:1-10:4)

2B. Discourse: Go Preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (10:5-11:1)

IVA. The King Experiences Opposition to Himself and His Kingdom (11:2-13:53)

1B. Narrative: Doubt, Sabbath, Unpardonable Sin (11:2-12:50)

2B. Discourse: The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-53)

VA. The King Experiences Increasing Opposition and Polarity (13:54-19:2)

1B. Narrative: Miracles, Traditions, and Transformation (13:54-17:27)

2B. Discourse: Qualities of Kingdom Disciples (18:1-19:2)

VIA. The King and His Kingdom Are Officially Rejected (19:3-25:46)

1B. Narrative: True Discipleship, Controversies, Warnings and Woes (19:3-23:39)

2B. Discourse: Great Tribulation, Christ’s Return, Certain Judgment (24:1-25:46)

VIIA. The King’s Initial Vindication and Commission (26:1-28:20)

1B. The King’s Passion (26:1-27:66)

2B. The King’s Resurrection (Vindication) and Commission (28:1-20)

Mark: Jesus as Suffering Servant

IA. Beginning of The Servant’s Ministry (1:1-13)

1B. Introduction (1:1)

2B. The Preparation of John the Baptist (1:2-8)

3B. The Baptism of Jesus (1:9-11)

4B. The Temptation of Jesus (1:12-13)

IIA. The Servant’s Ministry in Galilee (1:14-6:6a)

1B. Cycle One: Early Galilean—Saving Sinners and the Sabbath Controversy (1:14-3:6)

2B. Cycle Two: Later Galilean—Withdrawal, Beelzebub, and Rejection (3:7-6:6a)

IIIA. The Servant’s Withdrawals from Galilee (6:6b-8:21)

1B. The Catalyst: John Beheaded (6:6b-29)

2B. Withdrawals and Miracles: Deserted Place, Tyre, Decapolis, Sea of Gal. (6:30-8:21)

IVA. The Servant’s Suffering: Passion Prediction #1—Caesarea Philippi (8:22-38)

VA. The Servant’s Journey to Jerusalem (9:1-10:52)

1B. Lessons in Galilee: Passion Predication #2 (9:1-50)

2B. Lessons in Perea and Judea: Passion Prediction #3 (10:1-52)

VIA. The Servant’s Ministry in Jerusalem (11:1-13:37)

1B. Presentation of the Suffering Servant (11:1-11)

2B. The Servants Judgment of the Nation in Symbols (11:12-26)

3B. The Servant’s Confrontations with the Religious Leaders (11:27-12:44)

4B. The Servant’s Judgment of the Nation in Prophecy (13:1-37)

VIIA. Culmination of the Servant’s Ministry (14:1-16:8)

1B. Preparations for Death (14:1-52)

2B. The Death of the Servant (14:53-15:47)

3B. The Resurrection of the Servant (16:1-8)

Luke: Jesus as The Son True Man

IA. Prologue (1:1-4)

IIA. The Infancy and Growth of the Son of Man (1:5-2:52)

1B. Two Pregnancies Predicted (1:5-56)

2B. Two Sons Born (1:57-2:52)

IIIA. The Preparation for the Son of Man for Public Ministry (3:1-4:13)

IVA. The Son of Man’s Galilean Ministry (4:14-9:50)

VA. The Son of Man’s Journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27)

1B. Instruction in Discipleship in Light of Jesus’ Ministry (9:51-11:13)

2B. Confrontation with the Pharisees; 1^st Cycle (11:14-54)

3B. Instruction in Discipleship in Light of religious Leaders’ Rejection (12:1-13:35)

4B. Confrontation with Pharisees: 2^nd Cycle (14:1-24)

5B. Instruction in Discipleship in Light of Jesus’ Impending Death (14:25-19:27)

VIA. The Son of Man’s Jerusalem Ministry (19:28-21:38)

1B. Triumphal Entry (19:28-44)

2B. Opposition in the Temple (19:45-21:38)

VIIA. The Death and Resurrection of the Son of Man (22:1-24:53)

1B. Preparation for Death (22:1-53)

2B. Death (22:54-23:56)

3B. Resurrection (24:1-53)

Appendix Two

IA. The Parable

1B. Literary Context

2B. Character/Things and What They Stand For

3B. Historical Details

4B. General Progression, Plot Conflict, and Suspense

5B. End Stress

6B. Unclear Statements or Exaggeration

7B. Statement of General Theme and Variations

8B. Desired Response (Then and Now)

¹This catchy phrase is taken from K. R. Snodgrass, “Parable,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 594.

²Geriant V. Jones, The Art and Truth of the Parables (London: SPCK, 1964), 124.

³Hom. 31.

⁴(Freiburg: Mohr, 1899).

⁵Snodgrass, “Parable,” 591-92.

⁶For a further discussion of the current state of literary criticism and how that has impacted parable study, see William A. Beardslee, “Recent Literary Criticism,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae, The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Douglas A. Knight, SBL (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 175-198.

⁷See Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 137.

⁸Since Jesus’ parables appear to have more than one main point (which is not to deny that any one point may stand out more than another or that their theology cannot be clearly articulated propositionally), it is difficult to classify them topically as relating to the kingdom in different ways, i.e., entrance into the kingdom, the nature of the kingdom, life in the kingdom, the crisis of the kingdom, and the tragedy of rejecting the kingdom, etc. Though all of the parables relate in ways to the theme of the kingdom of God, a topical arrangement is reductionistic. See Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 290-93.

⁹See G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster), 162-63.

¹⁰C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1936), 60. Simon Kistemaker, “Parables of Jesus,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 824, says, “The parables of Jesus are stories that are true to life, even though in some cases exaggeration is intended (e.g., ten thousand talents by any standard is an astronomical sum on money, Matt. 18:24) or allegorical overtones can be detected (see the parable of the tenants, Matt 21:33-44; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:9-19). However, the parables Jesus taught are not allegories in which every name, place, and feature is symbolic and demands an interpretation. The parables embody metaphors and similes, but there are never removed from reality and never convey fictitious ideas. They are stories taken from the world in which Jesus lived and are told for the purpose of relating spiritual truth.” Since all of Jesus’ teaching was designed to illicit a response, and even more so with the parables, we might want to add to Kistemaker’s final comment by saying that the parables were told for the purpose of relating spiritual truth and calling for some form of commitment. They were designed to move the will as well as inform the head.

¹¹Blomberg, Parables, 166. The parables’ allegorical quality does not imply that it’s open season on whatever moves in the text. Principles of interpretation will be discussed below.

¹²This raises the question not of allegory versus something else, but of the degree of allegory and ways and methods for understanding this. For a discussion of how to judge various degrees of allegory, see Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 89-92.

¹³Cf. Leland Ryken, Words of Life: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 63.

¹⁴Regarding John Owen’s work, see www.bible.org for a review and summary of Owen’s, Mortification.

¹⁵Markan priority refers to the literary relationship between the three synoptic gospels, i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is generally held by most NT scholars today that there is indeed a literary relationship between these gospels and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as their own individual sources (i.e., M and L) and a common sayings document (Q).

The Argument of Hebrews

Related Media

Introductory Matters

I. Introduction

A. Authorship

There has been much debate concerning the authorship of Hebrews because the letter itself does not indicate who the author is. Perhaps the most common conjecture through the centuries has been that the apostle Paul is the author. The Chester Beatty Papyrus numbered P⁴⁶ and dated prior to 200AD¹ contains a collection of Paul’s epistles and includes Hebrews among them. Those holding to Pauline authorship suggest that Paul omitted his name because he, the apostle to the Gentiles, was writing to the Jews who would have likely dismissed the letter if they had known the source. The stylistic differences from Paul’s other letters is attributed to his writing in Hebrew to the Hebrews with the letter being translated into Greek by Luke.²

In modern times few accept the idea that a Lukan translation of Paul’s letter would account for all the stylistic differences in vocabulary, sentence building and imagery. About the only thing some commentators are certain of is that the author is not Paul.³

Others have suggested that Clement of Rome was the author, but this is not widely accepted because Clement’s other writings show that his theology differs widely from the author of Hebrews. In addition, none of his other writings show such “creative contributions to Christian theology” as does Hebrews.⁴

Barnabas is also thought by some to be the author. This would give the letter of Hebrews a close affiliation with Paul as Barnabas was Paul’s missionary companion, and this would explain the letter’s resemblance to Paul’s theology. Barnabas was a Levite and would have been acquainted with the levitical system which is a major theme in Hebrews.⁵

Martin Luther denied Pauline authorship and attributed the letter to Apollos on the grounds that the author says the message “was confirmed to us by those who heard.” Since Paul was one of “those who heard,” it follows that he would not have written this. Apollos was close to Paul and this would account for the similarities with Paul’s writings. He was a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24) and this would account for the Alexandrian coloring. He was known to be eloquent, and this would correspond to the advanced style of Hebrews. There are several reasons why Apollos could have written Hebrews and none to argue against it, except that early tradition does not support it.⁶

Others have been suggested such as Priscilla, Philip, Silas and Epaphras, but these are all conjecture and it is evident that we must admit that there is not enough evidence to know for sure who wrote Hebrews.

B. The Audience and Purpose for the Letter

Because the letter does not directly state who the audience is or the problems being dealt with, we must draw our conclusions from internal implications. The most obvious clue to the identity of the audience is the title “To the Hebrews.” Although we cannot be sure that this was on the original letter, there is no reason to doubt it.⁷ The extended treatment of Moses, Aaron, the levitical priesthood and Melchizedek also indicate a Jewish audience. Evidently there was some confusion about who Christ was with the danger being that angels were being assigned an equal or higher status than Christ. Along with this was the inclination to abandon Christ and return to the Mosaic law and the levitical priesthood.⁸ The purpose of the author of Hebrews is to establish Christ’s preeminence and His replacement of the Mosaic law and turn his audience back to faith in Him and Him alone. On the basis of the doctrine imparted, the author of Hebrews expects to inspire his readers to a response of faith in Christ as their savior and to a life of purity.

C. The Date

Just as the authorship of Hebrews is unknown, so is the date. Because of its use in 1 Clement, which is dated at 95 AD, most agree that the date must be prior to 95 AD, but the real debate centers around whether or not it was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Because there is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, it seems logical to conclude that it was written before 70 AD. After all, if the purpose of the letter is to show the end of the Mosaic law, the destruction of the temple would make a stronger argument and surely would have been mentioned in the letter. In addition, temple rituals are referred to in the present tense (cf. 9:6, 9, 13; 13:10).⁹

The Argument

The author details the preeminence of Christ’s person and work as the God-man and establisher of the new covenant to encourage the Hebrews not to revert back to Judaism because of persecution but to cling fast to the Messiah so they can enter into all the present and future blessings that accompany salvation.

II. The Superiority of Christ's Person (1-4:)

The author of Hebrews begins by expounding on the preeminence of Christ’s person and shows that because He is the magnificent sovereign of the universe and the ultimate revelation of God, He is inherently greater than the angels, Moses and the priests of the old covenant.

A. He Is God’s Final Word (1:1-4)

The superiority of Christ is first demonstrated by the contrast to the prophets of old who only spoke God’s word. Christ is God’s word and is, therefore, the ultimate revelation of God. This is emphasized by the use of ejn uiJw/`, which, being without the article, stresses the quality of His person.¹⁰ As a son, Christ is the true reflection of the glory and nature of God.

The principle that Christ is God’s final word is foundational to the rest of the author’s argument. The readers must understand that the revelation of Christ supersedes the old revelation and that Christ is superior to the law.

B. He Is Greater Than the Angels (1:5-2:18)

The second illustration of Christ’s superiority compares Him to the angels.¹¹ In order to dispense the notion that Christ was some sort of angel, the author contrasts Christ to the angels, and he continues the “son” imagery of his first contrast. Christ is superior to the angels for the following reasons:

1. Because He Is a Son and the Angels Are Servants (1:5,7)

Christ is superior to the angels because, while the angels are merely servants of God, He is the Son of God and thus the heir to the throne of God.¹²

2. Because He Is Worshipped by the Angels (1:6)

A second contrast, which proves Christ’s superiority, is the fact that He is worshipped by the angels. This quote from Psalm 97:7, an enthronement Psalm, supports the author’s point.¹³ If He is worshipped by the angels, He must be superior to them.

3. Because He Is Sovereign (1:8-14)

In contrast to the servant angels, who worship the Son, Christ is seen as God Himself. The vocative is used and Christ is addressed as “O God” (vs. 8). He is the eternal king, seated on His eternal throne (vs. 8) ruling with justice (vs. 9) because He is the Creator/Sustainer (vs. 10-12) and because He will defeat the enemy (vs. 13-14). These many references look forward to Christ’s rule of the eschatological kingdom.

Warning #1 “Pay Attention” (2:1-4)

Exhortation (2:1)

The author interjects a warning at this point to challenge his readers. Because this verse is connected to the previous section by “diaV tou~to,” they are logically related. He picks up his original point about Christ being the final revelation of God and warns them to pay careful attention.

Explanation (2:2)

Verse 2 gives the key to understanding the logical progression of the section. If the law (“the message spoken by angels”) was binding, then certainly the superior revelation of Jesus Christ was also binding and the readers must not neglect it or they would not share in Christ’s rule over His enemies.¹⁴

Exhortation (2:3-4)

He gives them further motivation to pay attention by telling them the results of neglecting this final revelation. In the same way that there was discipline for disobedience under the Mosaic law, the readers could expect the same under the new covenant (2:2).

4. Because of His Humanity (2:5-18)

After warning his audience of not paying attention and neglecting their future salvation, the author continues his comparison of Christ to the angels by emphasizing Christ’s humanity.

a) Future deliverance (2:5-16)

He begins the discussion by dealing with the subjection of the world to come. This coincides with the concept that the salvation is deliverance from one’s enemies. God gave dominion of the earth to man (Gen. 1:26), but he forfeited the ability in the Garden of Eden. Christ became man so that He could fulfill God’s original design of dominion (Heb. 2:5-8) and so that He could die for man and bring salvation (2:9-16).

b) Present deliverance (2:17-18)

In the midst of motivating them to persevere for future rewards and blessings, the author also shows them that there are present benefits. They have an empathetic high priest who can help them now.

C. Christ Is Greater Than Moses (3:1-4:13)

The author resumes his argument that Christ is superior to the Mosaic law by comparing Him to Moses. Moses was the giver of the law and as such represented the law. If Christ is superior to Moses, then Christ is superior to the law.

1. Moses Was a Servant - Christ Is a Son (3:1-6)

To prove Christ’s superiority he uses a servant-son contrast again. Moses was the greatest prophet in Israel’s history, but he was only a servant, while Christ is God’s son.

Warning #2 “Do not harden your heart.” (3:7-19)

The author pauses in his comparison of Christ and Moses to discuss the role of the people of God in the scheme of things. Israel’s response to Moses and God is an example for the readers and their response to Christ.

The Example of Israel (7-11)

This section is linked to the preceding context by Diov (therefore), so this example illustrates what happened to those who did not “hold fast in confidence and pride to their hope” (3:6). The Israelites hardened their hearts and doubted God’s ability, goodness, etc. and refused to trust Him to conquer the enemies in the land. The result was that they forfeited their right to enter the land and experience God’s rest (vs. 11).

The Exhortation to the readers (3:12-19)

The author now applies the example of Israel to his audience. Just like the children of Israel failed to enter into the land because of their unbelief, his audience of believers can also fail to enter into God’s rest in the kingdom and share¹⁵ in Christ’s reign if they are not faithful. When he says that “all are open and laid bare before [Him],” he is referring to the judgment seat of Christ when Christ will judge believers for their faithfulness.

2. Moses Could not Bring Them Into God’s Rest, but Christ Can (4:1-13)

With the events of Numbers 13:-14: in his mind, the author points out that Moses did not take the children of Israel into the promised land to enjoy the rest of God, but he assures them that the promise of God’s “rest” still exists, and the key to entrance is belief (vs. 3).

III. The Superiority of Christ's Ministry (4:14-10:18)

After comparing Christ’s person to the angels and Moses, the author begins his comparison of Christ to the priests who mediated the law. Christ is our Great High Priest who performs superior intercession to the priests of the old covenant. He supports this claim with the following points:

A. His Position in Heaven (4:14)

He is a superior high priest because of His position in heaven. Other priests worked in the temple, but Christ went directly into the presence of God (vs. 14).

B. His Empathy (4:15-16)

He is a greater high priest because He became a man Himself and can, therefore, sympathize with their weaknesses. He understands what they are struggling with as He makes intercession for them (vs. 15). But unlike other priests, who had to offer sacrifices for their own sins (5:3), Jesus did not.

C. His Priestly Order (5:1-10)

He was appointed by God like Aaron was (5:4), but His was a superior appointment because He was appointed after the order of Melchizedek (5:6,10).

Warning #3 “Don’t Fall Away” (5:11-6:12)

Expression of the problem (5:11-14)

The author pauses from his lesson on Melchizedek because he realized that his audience would have trouble understanding what he was about to say. He rebukes them for being so slow to learn, and he supports his indictment by stating that they should have been teachers by now (vs. 11). Instead, they still needed to be taught themselves.

Expression of the warning (6:1-6:8)

Instead of returning to the basic doctrines of the faith, like one would expect after such a rebuke, he says they should press on with the more complicated doctrine at hand. His reason is this: if the readers do not make progress in the Christian life, they will regress to a state from which there is such hardness of heart that there will be no chance of repentance. If this happens they will suffer the loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ.¹⁶

Exhortation (6:9-12)

But he is confident that this will not be the case with these readers, and he exhorts them to be diligent in their faith and to follow the example of the old testament saints. He will elaborate on this later in chapter 11.

Example (6:13-20)

To drive his point home he reminds them of the faith of Abraham, who received the promises of God.

D. He Is a Priest Like Melchizedek (7:1-10)

He returns to his discussion of the priesthood of Melchizedek, which he had mentioned in 5:6 and 10 because Christ’s role as high priest is an issue which is, evidently, a stumbling block for his audience. In order to prove the superiority of Christ’s priestly ministry, the author compares Him to Melchizedek and the levitical priests and then shows His superior service. The first point is that Melchizedek was a prototype of Christ.

1. Melchizedek’s Unique Person (7:1)

Melchizedek was an exalted person being both a king and priest. The author is more interested in his priesthood and will develop that topic in the following section.

2. Melchizedek’s Unique Function (7:2, 4-10)

Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham is shown by the fact that Abraham offered tithes to him.

3. Melchizedek’s Unique Genealogy (7:3)

Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy was perhaps typological of Christ’s eternal existence and continuing priesthood.

E. He Is Superior to the Levitical Priesthood (7:11-28)

After showing that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham and Levi, the author springs from his mention of Levi to the inadequacy of the levitical priesthood.¹⁷ His argument is that the levitical priesthood could not bring perfection and another priest was needed. The change in priesthood (vs. 11) equals a change in law (vs. 12) and demonstrates that Christ is superior to the levitical priesthood and that a new economy is in place.

Christ is the ultimate priest because God swore He would be a priest forever (vs. 20), because Christ lives forever (vs. 21) and because He will always be there to make intercession for us (vs. 25). He is sinless and therefore a better mediator than sinful priests (vs. 26-27).

F. His Is a Superior Ministry (8:1-13)

The author sums up his arguments to this point about the superiority of Christ’s person and ministry and introduces the logical conclusion that the new covenant that Christ mediates is superior to the old covenant.

1. He Is in the Presence of God (8:1-5)

One reason His service is superior is because He is in the heavenly temple in the very presence of God.

2. He Is the Mediator of a New Covenant (8:6-13)

The author has just shown the superiority of Christ to Melchizedek and the Levitical priests. He now makes the logical connection that the covenant which Christ mediates is superior to the old covenant. Here the author gives the theme statement to his letter. Just as Christ is superior in His person and ministry to all those He has been compared with, so is the new covenant superior to the old. To prove his point he quotes from Jer. 31:31-34. If Jeremiah recorded God’s promise that there would be a new covenant, that implied that the old covenant was inadequate.

The author also points out that it was the sinfulness of the people that caused the failure of the old covenant. It was not adequate to deal with their sin.¹⁸

G. The Superiority of the New Covenant (9:1-10:18)

The author gives his final and summary demonstration of Christ’s superiority by comparing the old covenant with the new.¹⁹

1. The Limitations of the Old Covenant (9:1-10)

The old covenant was mediated by sinful priests in an earthly tabernacle and was not sufficient to heal the broken relationship between God and man.

2. Christ’s Mediation of the New Covenant (9:11-10:18)

The author contrasts the work of the priests under the old covenant to Christ’s work under the new covenant.²⁰ Christ’s personal sacrifice brought healing to the broken relationship and eternal salvation to mankind.

a) A better sanctuary (9:11, 24)

Christ’s tabernacle is superior to the earthly one of the old covenant.

b) A better sacrifice (9:12-10:18)

Christ’s blood is superior to the blood of animals, and His sacrifice did not need to be repeated as did the sacrifices of the old covenant.

IV. Application of the Greatness of Christ (10:19-13:25)

After giving his argument about the superiority of Christ to the old covenant, the author turns to what the response of the readers should be. They need to take advantage of this new relationship with God brought about by Christ’s sacrifice by trusting in Him in the midst of trials and by living a godly life.

A. The Exhortation to Endure (10:19-25)

The superior sacrifice and mediation of Christ has enabled each believer to enter into the very presence of God and has enabled the believer to enjoy a superior relationship with God. The author urges his audience to take advantage of this privilege, to have an enduring faith in God and to encourage other believers to do likewise.

Warning #4 (10:26-39)

The author warns the readers that just as there was no sacrifice under the old covenant for deliberate sin,²¹ in the same way, Christ’s sacrifice will not protect the believer who willfully continues to sin from the wrath of God. On the other hand, if they persevere, they will be richly rewarded.

1. Punishment Under the Old Covenant (10:26-28)

The author reminds them of the consequences for deliberate sin under the old covenant.

2. Punishment Under the New Covenant (10:29-31)

The author explains that punishment for denying Christ will be more severe.

3. Promise of Reward (10:32-39)

The author reminds them of the earlier days when they endured persecution and encourages them to persevere in confidence and godliness because God will reward those who do not give up.

B. The Means of Endurance (11:1-40)

After encouraging them to endure, the author told them the means of enduring was faith (10:38), now he elaborates on what faith is.

1. The Description of Faith (11:1-3)

Faith is confidence in the person and promises of God, and since neither are tangible, God rewards those who demonstrate faith.

2. The Demonstration of Faith (11:4-38)

Just as the heroes of the old covenant had faith in the promises of God, so the readers should have faith in the promises of new “Revelation” of God.

a) Examples from general history (11:4-7)

The author gives examples of men who demonstrated faith who lived before the founding of the nation of Israel.

(1) The example of Abel (11:4)

Abel offered his sacrifice by faith in the promise of God.

(2) The example of Enoch (11:5-6)

The fact that God took Enoch directly to heaven without experiencing death shows that Enoch had extraordinary faith in God.

(3) The example of Noah (11:7)

Noah’s faith is demonstrated by his building an ark to float on water which did not yet exist.

b) Examples from the Patriarchs (11:8-29)

The author gives examples of faith from the Patriarchs.

(1) The example of Abraham (11:8-19)

Abraham left his own country at God’s command without knowing his destination and by faith he offered up his son Isaac.

(2) The example of Isaac (11:20)

Isaac demonstrated faith in God when he passed on God’s blessing to Jacob and Esau.

(3) The example of Jacob (11:21)

Jacob blessed Joseph’s sons and worshipped God.

(4) The example of Joseph (11:22)

Joseph had confidence that God would deliver the nation from Egypt and requested that his bones be carried to the promised land.

(5) The example of Moses (11:23-29)

Moses gave up the throne of Egypt and temporal pleasure to be persecuted as a follower of Yahweh because he believed in the future that God promised the nation.

c) Examples from the Nation in the land (11:30-38)

Probably due to limited time the author lists several individuals from the conquest of the land through the end of the nation’s occupation of the land as further examples of those who lived by faith in the promises of God.

3. The Delay of Fulfillment of the Promises Explained (11:39-40)

The author explains that the reason for the delay in God’s fulfillment of the promise to old testament saints was so that the readers might be included in those promises.

C. The Motivation for Endurance (12:1-29)

The writer encourages the readers to stay “in the race” of living the Christian life by following the example of Christ, by knowing that they are God’s children and that they have His enabling grace.

1. The Example of Christ (12:1-4)

The writer urges the readers to follow the example of the old testament saints²² and to persevere in the midst of persecution by focusing on the person and work of Christ.

2. The Encouragement of Discipline (12:5-11)

The author points out that hardship and discipline are certain signs that the readers are children of God because fathers discipline their children as a sign of their love and concern.

3. The Enablement of Grace (12:12-15)

God’s grace should enable them to live in peace with all men and to live righteous lives.²³

4. The Example of Esau (12:16-17)

In stark contrast to the righteous is Esau who was immoral and disdained the things of God and suffered the consequences.

5. The Explanation of the New Relationship to God (12:18-24)

The readers are privileged to a new relationship with God that is not based on fear as was the old covenant, so the writer is basically asking why the readers would want to return to a covenant based on fear.²⁴

Warning #5 (12:25-29)

The author warns the readers not to be like Esau (12:16) and throw away their inheritance in the kingdom by succumbing to fleshly desires for security.²⁵

D. Concluding Exhortations (13:)

The author concludes his letter with a list of exhortations which detail to his readers the godly life which should naturally follow a commitment to the new covenant.

1. Show Love to Others (13:1-3)

Because the unity in Christ transcends racial and cultural boundaries, the author encourages the Christians to love and hospitality to others. In the event that a Christian brother was imprisoned, he also exhorts the readers to support them.

2. Be Faithful to the Marriage Relationship (13:4)

The author also exhorts them to remain pure and faithful in their marriages lest they come under the judgment and discipline of God.

3. Do not Covet (13:5-6)

The writer urges the readers not to seek life in temporal things by coveting material goods, but to be content with what they have and trust God to provide for them.

4. Evaluate and Obey Your Leaders (13:7-17)

The author exhorts his audience to evaluate the teachings of their leaders to see if they are trying to lead them back into the bondage of the old system, and if they are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, obey them because they are accountable for their followers.

5. Concluding Remarks (13:18-25)

The writer urges his readers to pray for him and those with him and for his soon and safe return to them and sends his concluding greetings.

Bibliography

Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

Hodges, Zane, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. 1, Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983.

Hughes, Philip Edgumbe, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Kim, Young Kyu, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century.” Biblica. 69 (1988).

Lane, William L., Hebrews 1-8, Dallas: Word, 1991.

Moffat, James, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924.

Oberholster, Kim, “The Eschatalogical Salvation of Hebrews 1:5-2:5,” Biblio Theca Sacra, Vol. 145, No. 577. (Jan-Mar 1988).

Oberholtzer, Kim, “The Thorn Infested Ground in Hebrews 6:4-12,” Biblio Theca Sacra, Vol. 145, No. 579 (Jul-Sep 1988).

Oberholtzer, Kim, “The Failure to Heed His Speaking in Hebrews 12:25-29,” Biblio Theca Sacra, Vol. 146, No. 581 (Jan-Mar 1989).

Robertson, A.T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1934.

Stitzel, Don., “The Argument of Hebrews 7-9,” Master’s Thesis Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971.

Westcott, Broke Foss, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.

1 Young Kyu Kim, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica, 69, (1988) p. 248.

2 Philip Edgumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 19-22.

3 William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (Dallas: Word, 1991), p. xlix.

4 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990), p. 678.

5 Zane Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983), 1:778.

6 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 679.

7 Ibid., p. 683.

8 Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 11.

9 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 701-04.

10 A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 794.

11 The attention that the author devotes to this topic would indicate that there was some sort of aberrant doctrine going around that Christ was perhaps only an angel or at the very least that they were worshipping angels. James Moffat, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), p. 9. Also compare Col. 2:18 for an example that there was a problem with some people worshipping angels.

12 The son imagery was very important to the Jewish audience. In the Jewish household there were servants and sons. And although the servants were often a close part of the family, only the sons were the heirs to the father’s estate. This heirship was brought out earlier in verse 2. Therefore, Christ is the only heir to God’s throne. It is also significant that this is a quote from Psalm 2:7 (a royal enthronement psalm) which emphasizes Christ’s future reign.

13 This possibly comes from the LXX rendering which translates the Hebrew <yh!Oa$ (meaning gods) as “angels.” Hodges, “Hebrews,” p. 782.

14 Since he is writing to Christians (cf. “holy brethren” in 3:1 and his use of “we” in 2:3), who have already been saved, and in view of the author’s many quotations from royal enthronement psalms (1:5-14) and use of the word “salvation” in 1:14, the use of the word “salvation” in 2:3 must be a future deliverance from one’s enemies. He will resume this deliverance theme later as he talks about the “rest” that Moses couldn’t give.

15 Oberholster holds that metaco" is a key word in Hebrews. Sharing or partaking with Christ involves co-reigning with Him in a special way that supercedes just being in heaven. See “The Eschatalogical Salvation of Hebrews 1:5-2:5,” Biblio Theca Sacra, Vol. 145, No. 577, p.88.

16 Paul uses similar language in 1 Cor. 3:15 to describe the loss of rewards. Oberholtzer points out that the land is not destroyed in the burning process, only the fruit of the land, i.e. the thorns. See “The Thorn Infested Ground in Hebrews 6:4-12,” Biblio Theca Sacra, Vol. 145, No. 579, p. 326.

17 Lane, Hebrews, p. 180.

18 Hodges, “Hebrews,” p. 800.

19 Wescott writes that this is “a summary description of Christ’s High-priestly work.” Broke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 255.

20 Don Stitzel, “The Argument of Hebew 7-9,” Master’s Thesis Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971, p. 36.

21 Hodges, “Hebrews,” p. 805.

22 Lane writes, “The writer recognizes…that an earnest appeal for Christian endurance cannot finally be based upon the antecedent exposition of faithfulness to God under the old covenant.” See, Hebrews 9-13, p. 406. In other words, following the example of the OT saints is not enough. We need to focus on Christ.

23 This is reminiscent of the discussion of Melchizedek who was king of Salem (the word for peace) and his very name implies righteousness (qdz = righteous).

24 Oberholtzer, “The Failure to Heed His Speaking in Hebrews 12:25-29,” Biblio Theca Sacra, Vol. 146, No. 581, p. 74.

25 Oberholtzer further points out that Esau’s inheritance “was lost because of his lack of future perspective and because of his present physical distress.” Ibid., pp. 68-69.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

The Faith of Demons (James 2:19)

Related Media

This article was printed in 1995 issue of Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society.
It is used with permission. Their website is www.faithalone.org.

I. Introduction

Informed Christians are aware of the ongoing debate in modern evangelicalism concerning the content of the Gospel and the nature of faith. In the heat of the discussion, it’s inevitable that the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone will not be allowed to rest without a hurried disclaimer: “True faith will inevitably evidence itself in a life of consistent good works.” An appeal is made to James 2 as final confirmation that genuine saving faith must produce consistent good works, otherwise such a “faith” is obviously spurious.¹ While other passages are cited as confirming this theology, James 2 is given preeminence.² This seems a little surprising when some scholars see the Epistle of James as practically oriented rather than theologically oriented. Burdick even feels that, with the exception of Philemon, James “is without doubt the least theological of all NT books.”³

A natural reading of the epistle fails to uncover hints that a genuine Christian faith will by its very nature produce ongoing good works. If it were not for the clear theological conflict with Pauline justification by faith, such verses as Jas 2:14 would simply be read as an exhortation to add works to one’s faith as a means of gaining salvation and not as a by-product of it.

The primary purpose of this article is to reexamine the issues in Jas 2:14-26 in light of the Gospel debate. We contend that the Jacobean passage does not establish the traditional Reformed theological position that genuine faith always results in consistent, visible works. Instead, it reflects James’s exhortations to his readers to add works to their (genuine) faith for progressive sanctification. Our intention is not to examine each verse sequentially nor to present a detailed interpretation. Instead, we will exegetically investigate key points of contention according to their relative importance to the debate. A lengthy theological discussion to define genuine faith will be avoided.⁴Instead, we will supply the exegetical evidence that eliminates this verse as a prooftext used to define genuine faith.

A few observations should be noted at the outset. It is not denied that genuine faith will result in some change in the believer. Those holding to the Free Grace teaching do not assert that faith can exist without any change whatsoever. Most, if not all Free Grace proponents, believe that good works will inevitably result from faith, but not necessarily as visibly as we desire them to appear and not necessarily as consistently as the Lord would desire them to appear. Hodges writes:

We must add that there is no need to quarrel with the Reformers’ view that where there is justifying faith, works will undoubtedly exist too [italics added]. This is a reasonable assumption for any Christian unless he has been converted on his death bed! But it is quite wrong to claim that a life of dedicated obedience is guaranteed by regeneration, or even that such works as there are must be visible to a human observer. God alone may be able to detect the fruits of regeneration in some of His children.⁵

Charles Ryrie, a Free Grace theologian, views James 2 as explaining a false faith that has no works. On the other hand, he understands that works may not always be evident in a believer’s life. He comments, “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit: somewhere, sometime, somehow.”⁶ Three further qualifications are added in his explanation: a believer may not always be fruitful; the fruit may not be outwardly evident; and the fruit may not be my “definition” of what fruit should be.⁷So while the gospel debate centers on many concepts in James 2, the debate does not hang on coming to the identical conclusions in every point.⁸

II. The Interlocutor of 2:18--19

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! (Jas 2:18-19)

Whenever it is argued that faith is more than a mere intellectual assent (i.e., that faith must also include surrender/commitment to the Lordship of Christ),⁹ reference is hastily made to the demons’ faith mentioned in v 19. It might even be said that Jas 2:19 forms the preeminent argument for the perspective that true faith comprises more than a superficial, intellectual “faith.” The appeal is so widespread that it is difficult to find an author holding to the viewpoint who does not employ 2:19 in this way. A few citations will be beneficial.

No more stunning illustration of dead faith has ever been presented [than James 2:19]. Yes, even the demons have faith. Will this “someone” . . . intimate that the demons are saved by their faith; that the Christian to whom he says, “Thou hast faith,” need, [sic] no better faith?¹⁰

My question is, what kind of faith is it that permits a person, having affirmed Jesus Christ as Jehovah God, to continue in an unbroken pattern of sin and rebellion? Is that not demonic faith (James 2:19), orthodox but not efficacious?¹¹

Is “faith” minus commitment a true biblical faith? We remember that the apostle James goes so far as to insist . . . that a faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26). Such “faith” is useless (v. 20), worth nothing (v. 16). It is a claim to faith only (v. 14), not genuine faith, . . . no different from the assent of the demons who “believe . . . and shudder” (Jas 2:19).¹²

James implies [in using 2:19] that demonic faith is greater than fraudulent faith of a false professor, for demonic faith produces fear, whereas unsaved men have “no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:18). If the demons believe, tremble, and are not saved, what does that say about those who profess to believe and don’t even tremble? (cf. Isa 66:2, 5).¹³

1. A Genuine Crux Interpretum

In light of how frequently a “false faith” theology is bolstered by a reference to the faith of demons in Jas 2:19, one would think the passage would pose no exegetical difficulties. Surprisingly enough, the very opposite is the case. The problems are so complex that some scholars think 2:18-19 might be the most difficult passage in the entire NT!¹⁴ Hiebert remarks, “Efforts to establish the precise force of the verse [18] have taxed the ingenuity of the commentators.”¹⁵ Nevertheless, the confidence in using 2:19 to support a faith-works formula is enthusiastically maintained in spite of the ongoing confusion that arises with 2:18-19. Davids argues that the basic sense of the verses is clear despite the problems.¹⁶ But is it feasible to defend the dominant clarity of the passage when numerous details are so ambiguous? He himself remarks, “It is obvious, then, that none of the solutions to this passage is without its problems.”¹⁷

Several others also cast their vote for the clarity of the basic elements regardless of the many obscurities. Chester and Martin believe the section “is notoriously obscure and difficult,” but add that the main point is clear: the inseparability of faith and works.¹⁸ Therefore, the preceding testimonies lead us to believe that the text under consideration may justly be called a crux interpretum,¹⁹ and those who seek an illustration for some form of “false faith” here should tread the ground more cautiously.²⁰

2. Exegetical Options

To the ordinary reader, options for the interpretation of 2:18-20 are almost too numerous and confusing to decipher. Perhaps the really crucial questions for exegetical consideration include: 1) How far do the words of this imaginary person extend--through the end of v 18, or even into v 19?; and 2) Who is the one mentioned in the introductory statement of 2:18, “But someone may say…”? Is he an ally helping James respond to an opponent (or James himself),²¹ simply an opponent,²² or one who gives two viewpoints that somewhat agree with James but add qualifications to the apostle’s perspective?²³ In the latter scenario, the respondent offers a plea for tolerance and pluralism. His suggestion is that both the one who has faith and the one who has works are acceptable before God.

To take the words of the person in 2:18a as an ally or in any way agreeing with James is strange. The only rationale for this sentiment is the fact that this imaginary “someone” claims to have works (2:18b, “and I have works”). But James has just lamented the absence of such works (2:14-16). How can an opponent make such a claim? Seemingly, his self-description has taken up the very position James defends.²⁴ In addition, reading the verse this way gravely weakens the sense of the adversative alla (“but”) that begins the introductory formula, “But someone will say.”²⁵

But the most serious obstacle to overcome is the nature of the introductory formula itself. This interlocutory style resembles the dialogical Greek diatribe and everywhere the words that follow it contain the comments of an objector.²⁶ According to McKnight,

Scholars are agreed that the introductory formula cannot without violence be taken in any other way than as relaying the view of an interlocutor. Evidence is abundant, including 1 Cor 15:35; Rom 9:19; 11:19; Luke 4:23; Jos. J. W. 2.365; 3.367; 4 Mac 2:24; Barn. 9:6; Xen. Cyr. 4.3.10.²⁷

The third approach above--that the respondent offers a compromise position to James--runs into equally insurmountable difficulties. For example, it must apply to the personal pronouns “you” and “I” (2:18) an obscure indefiniteness such as, “One has faith; another has works.” Handling the pronouns in such a manner is quite unnatural to NT grammar.²⁸ And like the ally view, it must deny the logical connection between the “someone” of 2:18a with the “someone” of 2:14 and 2:16.²⁹ Interpreting the words of 2:18a and following must involve perceiving them as the words of an opponent.

3. The Content of the Faith in 2:19

It is generally thought that the faith of the demons forms a challenge to the objector of 2:18 “to recognize the true nature of an orthodox faith that is inoperative.”³⁰ Three primary objections can be raised against the supposition that Jas 2:19 proves that true faith involves commitment, works, or some element beyond mental assent (i.e., faith in propositional truth).

First, the content of faith in the passage is not soteriological. It is regularly identified that the statement “You believe that God is one; the demons also believe . . .” is monotheist and thoroughly Jewish. But no evangelical theologian purports that any individual is ever redeemed by any kind of faith in the oneness of God. What is clear is the fact that “precisely the unique content of the Christian faith is not represented here.”³¹ Gordon Clark’s question is appropriate: “The text says the devils believed in monotheism. Why cannot the difference between the devils and Christians be the different propositions believed, rather than a psychological element in belief?”³² In other words, the text does not say that the demons believe in Christ as Savior, or even that they believe in Christ as Savior and Lord. Those who use the illustration of the demons’ faith to prove the existence of a false intellectual faith that does not redeem, are “comparing apples with oranges.” Therefore, it is pressing the case too far to find in this passage an example of the kind of false faith that is inadequate to regenerate because it fails to produce consistent works. This argument has no clear value.

4. Demons and People: An Illogical Comparison

A second major objection to the traditional prooftexting of 2:19 is this: No faith the demons have can be compared with faith that people have. Even if the text read, “You believe that Jesus is the Christ [cf. John 20:31]; . . . The demons also believe . . . ,” an inadequacy in comparison would still be evident. Although the words for “faith” are never used elsewhere for the response of demons, it is true that in the Gospels the demons know that Jesus is the Son of God (Matt 8:29).³³ They even yield to his Lordship (Mark 1:24; 5:7; Matt 8:29-30).

Nevertheless, if demons had faith in Christ, i.e., if they trusted in His sacrifice for their redemption, they would not be born again. It would not matter whether the faith was intellectual assent or full surrender. There simply is no redemption for demons (Heb 2:14). On the other hand, whenever a person trusts in Christ solely as his sinbearer, he is forensically justified.³⁴ In regard to eternal salvation, demons and people cannot be compared. Evangelicals should abandon their use of Jas 2:19 if for no other reason than this: The faith of demons cannot and should not be compared with the faith of human beings.

5. The Opponent Speaks in 2:19

Yet a third consideration demands our attention in 2:19. We have in the words all’ erei tis (“But someone will say”) the obvious introduction of an objector. But what follows seems to be a reversal of what we might expect: James is said to have faith while the objector claims to have works. Dibelius comes to the conclusion that the text has suffered corruption, making the passage impervious.³⁵ But the solution may be found by discovering how far the objector’s words extend.³⁶ Hodges perceptively asks, “Is it possible that the exegetical difficulties involved here are actually due to a failure to read all the objector’s words?” [italics original].³⁷

Once again the options are sundry. A survey of the placement of quotation marks in various translations of Jas 2:18-20 shows that as many as four possibilities exist. They are arranged below with a representative translation, starting from the shortest suggested words of the objector down to the longest. The underlined portion reflects the placement of the quotation marks in each version.

Option #1: Moffatt³⁸

¹⁸Someone will object, “And you claim to have faith!” Yes, and I claim to have deeds as well; you show me your faith without any deeds, and I will show you by my deeds what faith is! ¹⁹You believe in one God? Well and good. So do the devils, and they shudder. ²⁰But will you understand, you senseless fellow, that faith without deeds is dead?

Option #2: NIV³⁹

¹⁸But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. ¹⁹You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-- and shudder. ²⁰You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

Option #3: NASB⁴⁰

¹⁸But someone may well say, “You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” ¹⁹You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. ²⁰But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Option #4: Weymouth⁴¹

¹⁸Nay, someone will say, “You have faith, I have actions; prove to me your faith from corresponding actions and I will prove mine to you by my actions. ¹⁹You believe that God is one, and you are quite right: evil spirits also believe this, and shudder.” ²⁰But, idle boaster, are you willing to be taught how it is that faith apart from obedience is worthless?

As is obvious from these options, the Greek text does not contain some form of inspired punctuation to help decide the case. So how are these options to be settled? While the literature complicates the decisions, insight is available. As we have already concluded, the phrase, “But someone will say,” undoubtedly contains a standard formula for introducing an objection. Hodges expresses the opinion that o anthrope kene (“You foolish man”) can be best understood as James’s response to the objector, whose words carry through two verses (2:18-19), not one. This is the pattern taken by the Weymouth version in the fourth option above. Convincing support for this conception is found in the similar biblical parallels in 1 Cor 15:36 and Rom 9:19 where the rebuttals commence with a rebuking appellative strikingly parallel to Jas 2:20.⁴² For consistency, the NASB is used without its quotation marks for all the verses in the following chart:

	Jas 2:18-20	1 Cor 15:35-36	Rom 9:19-20
Introductory Formula	But someone may well say,	But someone will say,	You will say to me then,
Objector’s Words	You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith with-out the works, and I will show you my faith by works. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe and shudder.	How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?	Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?
Apostle’s Response	But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?	You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies …	On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

As can be seen in the chart, in both of the Pauline texts the rejoinder to the imaginary objector begins with a pronouncement of the man’s foolishness. But in James, the remark about the objector’s folly comes at the beginning of verse 20, not in verse 18 or 19. If this is accepted, the counterproposal to James encompasses all of 2:18-19.⁴³ These parallel stylistic structures make it nearly impossible to take the text in any other way than that 2:18-19 is a complete unit--the entire words of an opponent to James.⁴⁴ Although secular literature can also be cited with the same stylistic blueprint, the biblical pattern is convincing in and of itself.⁴⁵

McKnight, attempting to confirm the unity of 2:18b-19 (but as the response from James), really gives evidence of the unity of all of 2:18-19 (apart from the introductory formula, of course). In a footnote he observes:

Observe the neat structure of 2:14-26: (1) 2:14 and 2:17 form an inclusio, both verbally (cf. erga de me eche [“and he does not have works”] and me eche erga [“it does not have works”]) and rhetorically (question/conclusion); (2) 2:20 forms an inclusio with 2:26 both rhetorically (question/conclusion) and materially (cf. arge [“useless”] with nekra [“dead”]).⁴⁶

Martin, citing R. W. Wall’s unpublished article on the passage, lists two other supports for extending the objector’s statement through the end of 2:19: 1) a chiastic structure is found in 2:18-19; and 2) the rebuke in verse 20 is so severe that it necessitates more than a briefly stated objection.⁴⁷ But added to that is the salient affinity between sy pistin echeis (“you [yourself] have faith”) in 2:18 and sy pisteueis (“you [yourself] believe”) in 2:19, making it all the more likely that both verses come from the mouth of the same person.

What then is the meaning intended by the zealous antagonist?⁴⁸ Only a brief answer can be offered here. With the help of textual criticism, the choris (“without”) of 18b is best replaced by the superior reading of ek (“by”) found in the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus (but omitted from the KJV).⁴⁹ The resultant meaning is a challenge by the objector for faith to be demonstrated by works (2:18). His challenge is reflected in the words deixon moi (“Show me”) and soi deixo (“I will show you”). The point of the demonstration lies in the supposed impossibility of displaying any works that can prove the existence of faith since two disparate “works” arise from the same affirmation of faith. The demons believe there is one God and tremble; James believes the same thing but does good works.⁵⁰

In modern terms, the imaginary objector might have said, “James, you start with a doctrinal point, and show me what good work proves you believe this. If you can do that, I’ll do the reverse. I’ll name a good work and show what doctrine must be behind it. It’s impossible! For example, James, you believe that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. And you have a monogamous marriage. But the Mormons believe that too, and some of them are polygamous. So works can’t show us anything about a person’s faith. No one can see faith.”

By so arguing, the objector hopes to salvage some value for a verbalized faith.⁵¹ James had stated that both speaking and acting on our faith in the Lord Jesus (2:12 with 2:1) were required of the believer, and that works show us that one’s faith is living and vital (2:17).⁵² Therefore, works can demonstrate one’s faith. The opponent disagrees, speculating that no one can see the vitality of faith by works. The following rebuttal by James is designed to prove that faith was surely visible through the works of Abraham. The only way to see faith is through works; to merely talk our faith is useless to meet practical needs (cf. 2:15-16 where someone speaks but doesn’t act). The blepeis (“you [singular] see”) in 2:22 is then directed toward the challenge of deixon moi (“Show me,” 2:18) by the objector. The horate (“you see”), now moving to the plural, draws the readership back into the truth that James is stressing.

Perhaps the following analysis will assist us to understand this interpretation of the opponent’s words. The text reveals an internal chiastic format underlying the challenge to James. The translation follows the Majority Text⁵³ and should be read from the top down, and from left to right. The chiastic format is incomplete (the bottom right) because: 1) the imaginary opponent has supplied James’s response for him, and 2) the opponent does not hold that a further reply by James is possible.

		The Starting Point	The Challenge:	Exhibit A:	Exhibit B:
			Works Do Not Show One’s Faith	James Has Faith and Good Works	Demons Have Faith and No Good Works
		2:18a	2:18b	2:19a	2:19b
James	A¹ Faith	You have faith	Show me your faith	You believe that God is one	The demons also believe

	B¹ Works		by your works	You do well!	and shudder

Objector	B² Works	and I have works	and I will show you by my works

	A² Faith		my faith

III. Conclusion

This study has attempted to establish numerous precautions against using Jas 2:19 as a prooftext for the concept and theology of a “false faith.” First, any passage that is fraught with such comprehensive exegetical challenges should not be a primary (and perhaps not even a secondary) foundation for a theological superstructure. But this is exactly how Jas 2:19 has been employed by many evangelicals. Those using the verse to promote the existence of a supposed “head faith” over against genuine faith should be more circumspect in their handling of the passage on this ground alone.

Further serious caveats have been highlighted. Two factors render the application of demonic faith to earthly living fully inappropriate: 1) The content of faith that the demons are said to possess is not the content of faith for eternal life; and 2) Any possible faith that demons can possess--whether it is intellectual assent or full and complete surrender to the Lordship of Christ--cannot gain eternal life for them. There is no redemption for the evil angels. It is illogical to compare faith of the spirit world with faith in the human realm.

Finally, it has been demonstrated that the words of Jas 2:19 are not spoken by James himself. Instead, Jas 2:18-19 as a whole comes from the mouth of the imaginary objector introduced in 2:18a. It should be obvious that if this is the case, evangelicals will need to abandon the use of this verse to establish orthodox definitions of faith. Should we teach as truth that which comes from the mouth of an objector to the apostle James?

Endnotes

¹ We list only a short sample: John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works, The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 139-55; Edmond D. Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 43-45; James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 120-24; Peter Davids, The Epistle of James, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 49-51, 120-21; Robert V. Rakestraw, “James 2:14-26: Does James Contradict Pauline Soteriology?” Criswell Theological Review 1 (Fall 1986): 31-50; John Polhill, “Prejudice, Partiality, and Faith: James 2,” Review and Expositor 83 (Summer 1986): 395-404; R. E. Glaze, Jr., “The Relationship of Faith to Works,” The Theological Educator 34 (Fall 1986): 35-42.

² This seems to be witnessed by the series of papers presented before the Evangelical Theological Society and printed in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (March 1990): John F. MacArthur, Jr., “Faith According to the Apostle James,” 13-34; Earl D. Radmacher, “First Response to ‘Faith According to the Apostle James,’ by John F. MacArthur, Jr.,” 35-41; Robert L. Saucy, “Second Response to ‘Faith According to the Apostle James’ by John F. MacArthur, Jr.,” 43-47.

³ Donald W. Burdick, “James,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 12:164.

⁴ John MacArthur voices the opinion that Zane Hodges, a Free Grace scholar, never specifically defines what faith is in his writings. Shortly after his objection, he writes, ‘Hodges presupposes something of a description of faith, though not really a full definition: ‘What faith really is, in biblical language, is receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true’” [italics in both Hodges and MacArthur] (MacArthur, “James,” 15). The real problem seems to be a dissatisfaction with the way Free Grace authors define faith. MacArthur elsewhere uses a similar description, drawing from Heb 11:1: In other words, real faith implicitly takes God at His word. Faith is a supernatural confidence in--and therefore reliance on--the One who made the promises…It is a trust that brings absolute here-and-now certainty to ‘things hoped for’” (MacArthur, Faith Works, 40). I know of no Free Grace advocate who would object to this definition as it stands.

⁵ Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redencin Viva, 1989), 215. Unfortunately, this is in the endnotes of the book rather than in the main text.

⁶ Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), 45. See pages 132-33 for his discussion of James 2.

⁷ Ibid., 45-46.

⁸ Saucy, “Second Response,” 46. Having said this, however, we must add that according to MacArthur, “The single factor that distinguishes counterfeit faith from the real thing is the righteous behavior inevitably produced in those who have authentic faith” (MacArthur, “James,” 16).

⁹ Although this article cannot discuss it, there are more possibilities for defining genuine faith than just two: “Mere intellectual assent” vis--vis commitment to the Lordship of Christ. Some Free Grace theologians, such as Ryrie, reject both of these options (Ryrie, Salvation, 118-23).

¹⁰ R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 585.

¹¹ John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, ‘Follow Me’? revised and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 74, n. 1; see also page 29, n. 3; pages 38, 186, 235. No less than five different appeals are made to this verse to support the claim that faith without works does not redeem.

In this viewpoint, the problem of unbroken sin and rebellion in a “Christian” is traced to an initial “faith” that was less than a full surrender to the Lordship of Christ. This, of course, does not solve the dilemma. We might just as logically ask, “What kind of faith is it that permits a person, having surrendered fully to the Lordship of Christ (and to all outward appearances lived obediently to Him for years), to fall into and continue in an unbroken pattern of sin and rebellion?”

¹² James Montgomery Boice, Christ’s Call to Discipleship (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 17.

¹³ MacArthur, Faith Works, 151.

¹⁴ Martin Dibelius, James, ed. Helmut Koester, translated by Michael A. William, revised by Heinrich Greeven (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 154; Ralph P. Martin, James, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 87.

¹⁵ Hiebert, James, 182; cf. also Adamson, James, 135.

¹⁶ Davids, James, 123; also, “However one reads it [v 18], the essential point James is making is clear” (MacArthur, “James,” 24-25).

¹⁷ Davids, James, 124.

¹⁸ Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 22.

¹⁹ Cf. Scott McKnight, “James 2:12a: The Unidentifiable Interlocutor,” Westminster Theological Journal (Fall 1990): 355, who calls 18a “this crux interpretum,” over against Davids, James, 123, who challenges such an idea with, “This is not a crux interpretum, for…the general sense of the verse is clear enough in its context.”

²⁰ Cf. for example, Saucy’s opinion: “Surely the demonic faith is used to illustrate a nonsaving faith in the spiritual, eternal sense [emphasis added]…” (Saucy, “Second Response,” 45).

²¹ Lenski, James, 583; Adamson, James, 124-25; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Comments, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954), 99-100.

²² Davids, James, 124; Glaze, “Relationship of Faith to Works,” 40.

²³ Mayor, James, 99-101; Polhill, “James,” 400; Burdick, “James,” 183; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of James and John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 91; Lorin L. Cranford, “An Exposition of James 2,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 29 (Fall 1986): 27; Douglas J. Moo, James, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), 105-106. This view is reflected in the Good News Bible (Today’s English Version) and NEB translations.

Moo suggests the interlocutor defends a position where one person who has just faith is considered equally acceptable to another who has works. But James declares that the two are inseparable. This interpretation is similar to Erasmus’s conception of the passage as a debate between one side that promoted faith without works and another side that supported works without faith, with James taking a mediating position; Timothy George, “‘A Right Strawy Epistle’: Reformation Perspectives on James,” Review and Expositor 83 (Summer 1986): 375.

For a good overview of these alternatives and others, see McKnight, “Interlocutor,” 355-59; Martin, James, 86-89.

²⁴ Cranford, “James 2,” 27; McKnight, “Interlocutor,” 355.

²⁵ Martin, James, 86.

²⁶ Ibid., 77.

²⁷ McKnight, “Interlocutor,” 356. Davids, James, 124, also agrees that the formula introduces an objector since Greek literature has never revealed a common stylistic pattern other than that of introducing a dissenting voice.

²⁸ Martin, James, 87; Davids, James, 123-23.

²⁹ N. B., Cranford, “James,” 27, who denies that the objection of 2:18a is similar to the objection of 2:14 and 2:16. Yet he seems to concede that this understanding of 2:18a seems unnatural. He states: “Quite probable is the view that the objector here is not to be seen in detailed parallel to the tis [“someone”] either in verse fourteen or sixteen. Rather it is an objection which James sets up somewhat strangely as a way to call attention to the inseparableness of faith and works.”

³⁰ Hiebert, James, 186.

³¹ Dibelius, James, 158.

³² Gordon H. Clark, The Johannine Logos (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.), 81; see also Ryrie, Salvation, 121-22. At this point, the popular distinction between a head belief and a heart belief naturally comes to mind, the former involving merely an “intellectual assent” and the latter involving some additional element of commitment or reliance. That man can be so truncated as to be able to sincerely believe with his mind (i.e., a false faith) yet not believe with his heart is theologically suspect. If the head represents the intellect while the heart represents the will, what place do the emotions have in the faith process? Could a person have an insufficient faith because he has believed with his mind (head) and submitted his will (heart) but has not believed with his emotions? Even Clark, who is a Reformed theologian, expresses strong sentiments against the head-heart division. He has evinced from the use of pistis (“faith”) in the Gospel of John that genuine faith can certainly be an intellectual assent, i.e., that the fundamental meaning of pistis is belief in a proposition (cf. the very purpose statement of the Gospel, John 20;31). “There is no antithesis between believing Jesus as a person and believing what he says” (Clark, Logos, 71). There are not three options: false faith, true faith, and no faith. Only two options present themselves on the pages of Scripture: faith and no faith.

Rakestraw points out that in Jas 2:19 the text says that the demons “believe that…” (pisteuo + hoti), not “believe in…” Therefore, the faith under discussion is intellectual and lacks the commitment necessary for true faith (Rakestraw, ‘James 2:12-26,” 36). But the very same construction is used no less than twelve times in the Gospel of John alone to connote genuine faith, including the purpose statement in John 20:31. Other references include 6:69; 8:24; 11:27, 42; 13:19; 14:10-11; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21.

³³ Wilkin holds that the fear exhibited by the demons is evidence that they really do believe in monotheism (Robert N. Wilkin, “An Exegetical Evaluation of the Reformed Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints” [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1982], 11). Polhill’s comment is interesting: “More than mere intellectual assent is involved in the demonic acknowledgment of God,” in that they fully recognized who Jesus was and understood that their very existence was in his control [italics added] (Polhill, “James 2,” 404, n 28). Despite this admission, he uses 2:19 to establish that James’s concern is an intellectual-assent-only faith (page 400).

³⁴ James is in agreement with all of the NT in making Christ the object of faith (2:1).

³⁵ Dibelius, James, 157-58.

³⁶ “The first investigation incumbent upon the interpreter is to determine how far the opponent’s objection extends and where the author’s words begin again” (Ibid., 154). On the other hand, McKnight holds that the beginning of James’s response in 2:18b is one of the “elements of exegesis which, if not certain, [is] unquestionably on the side of probability.” He spends only one sentence to decide the case (McKnight, ‘Interlocutor,’ 359-60).

³⁷ Zane C. Hodges, “Light on James Two From Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (October 1963):343.

³⁸ James Moffatt, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., 1926).

³⁹ Cf. also RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NAB, GNB, (Today’s English Version), Berkeley, NEB (loosely).

⁴⁰ Cf. also Phillips, New Century Version, The Webster Bible (1833), Douay Version.

⁴¹ Richard F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech (London: James Clark and Company, 1905); cf. also Williams version, The New Testament (1986 ed. only); Young’s Literal Translation (1898); and Martin, James, 76-77, 88-89, 90, who holds this option with reservations.

⁴² Zane C. Hodges, The Epistle of James (Irving, TX; Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 65; see also the same author’s work, Dead Faith: What Is It? (Dallas: Redencin Viva, 1987), 16-17.

⁴³ Others who take the two verses as a unit (but as an ally to James) include Mayor, James, 101; Robert Johnstone, A Commentary on James, revised ed. (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 188-91.

⁴⁴ Lenski rejects these parallels, arguing that both the form of these biblical texts and the parallels in secular literature are different from James. Why he thinks so is not given. It is more likely that he is viewing the words in 2:18b from his inclination that they are the words of an ally. This influences his interpretation (Lenski, James, 583).

⁴⁵ For an overview of the parallels in secular literature, see Dibelius, James, 154, n. 29.

⁴⁶ McKnight, “Interlocutor,” 363, n. 38. The inclusion between 2:20 and 2:26 is strengthened if we read the nekra [“dead”] of the Majority Text in 2:20.

⁴⁷ R. W. Wall, “Interlocutor and James, James 2:18-20 Reconsidered,” unpublished article cited in Martin, James, 76-77. In the 1 Corinthians and Romans 9 parallels, the objector’s words carry for two sentences, not one. This backs up Wall’s observation about the rebuke necessitating more than a concise protest. Regrettably, the chiastic structure is not printed in Martin’s commentary.

⁴⁸ A defense of the meaning of the text is not crucial for our thesis. The point to be stressed is that the words of 2:19 are the opinions of an opponent of James, not the theology of James himself! Therefore, Heide seems to be missing the point in stating, “Whether James or some supposed debater is speaking in verse 19 is of little consequence to this debate…James ultimately agrees with what is being said” (Heide, “James 2:14,” 95). Heide’s thought is that 2:14-17 and 2:20-26 still teach that a dead faith is an intellectual faith that does not redeem, regardless of how we interpret 2:19. But it may also be that Jas 2:19 has been unconsciously applied to 2:14-26 to prove that a dead faith is a false faith. Once this theology has permeated the passage, there is no further need for Heide and others to use 2:19. The intellectual, false faith theology stands by itself throughout 2:14-26. Despite Heide’s disclaimer, the identity of the spokesperson in 2:19 has significant consequences for the debate, as was documented in the introduction to this article.

⁴⁹ Wall, “Interlocutor and James,” cited in Martin, James, 76-77. The Weymouth version appears to read the ek also. The reading of ek [“by”] is certainly the lectio difficilior. Internal evidence, such as the chiastic structure discussed below, helps confirm this reading. For a defense of this reading together with a fuller explanation of the meaning, see either work by Hodges, “Light on James Two,” 343-47 or Dead Faith, 16-17.

⁵⁰ That kalos poieis (“you do well” or “you do right”) can be rendered this way (= “you do good [works]”) is seen from its use in Luke 6:27 and Matt 5:24; 12:12; cf. also kalos poieite (“you are doing what is right/good”) in Jas 2:8 and kalon poiein (“to do what is right/good”) in Jas 4:17.

⁵¹ The theme of an undisciplined tongue flows throughout the book of James, and begins as early as 1:13, “let no one say when he is tested…” Many among James’s readers were verbalizing this misconception of the nature of their trials. James 2:14 fits into this theme. As a Christian, to say that I have faith (2:14) but not involve myself in good deeds is a sin of my tongue as well as a sin of my life.

⁵² “Dead faith” for James does not mean a false faith but a useless faith. A productive faith is his theme from the beginning. His directions are to count trials as joyful “because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (NIV, 1:3-4). This productive-faith theme must be allowed to impact our thinking of James 2 (cf. 2:22).

⁵³ The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, ed. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson publishers, 2nd ed., 1982).

Preface to Acts

I have a good friend who is a relatively new Christian. Some time ago he set out to read through the New Testament. He read Matthew, Mark, and then Luke, but he was so eager to get to the Book of Acts he skipped John. I can understand exactly why he was so anxious to get to this very exciting New Testament book. There is no other book like it. It describes the birth of the church, and the transformation of discouraged and fearful followers of Jesus into fearless preachers of the Gospel. Acts provides us with biographical insight into the lives of those men who wrote the New Testament, and an account of the birth of many of the churches to which New Testament epistles were written. Perhaps most of all, the Book of Acts describes the ministry of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church, convicting men of sin, converting men and women to faith in Christ, and giving courage and clarity to the apostles, who had the awesome task of committing the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ to written form. Here is a book that you can hardly put down, one that has informed and inspired saints down through the ages.

Acts is full of surprises. God will not be put in a box by men. God is not there to be used by men, as they go through the right sequence of spiritual steps. God uses men, rather than to be used by men, as Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) learned. The apostles and disciples of our Lord met together to choose a replacement for Judas, and Matthias was chosen by lot (see Acts 1). There is good reason to conclude that God set aside the church’s choice, raising up Saul, a man that the apostles found hard to accept as a fellow-believer, let alone an apostle (see Acts 9). When the early church had a problem of inequity in the feeding of its widows, the apostles had the church select seven men, to oversee the care of the widows, so that they, the apostles, could devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6). And yet it was two of these men who were appointed to free up the apostles who were most instrumental in the proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles (Acts 7 and 8). God will not be put in a box. If the Book of Acts teaches us that God has great power, which He demonstrates in and through the church, the Book also teaches us that God’s presence and power is sovereignly bestowed on men, and that those who would seek to manipulate God for their own gain are living very dangerously.

Acts is not so much a “how to” book as it is the documentation of how our Lord continues to minister to His church through His saints, by means of His Spirit, in ways we would never have expected. It is a great book. Let us listen and learn with open hearts and minds, looking to His Spirit to make His thoughts our own, as we study this magnificent portion of His Word.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

The Purpose of Prophecy

Introduction

Several months ago, a friend of mine came by the house to help me with a project. I couldn’t help but observe that his tail pipe was rattling noisily and found that the bracket had broken. Now it just so happened that I had recently acquired a welder and was eager to practice what little I had learned about welding. I was under the car, sparking away, sticking the rod to the metal, and doing an all-around sloppy job. Graciously, my friend looked on with what appeared to be a sense of wonder and respect for such “skill.” That’s when I remembered that my friend, who had so patiently and silently endured my meager efforts, was an industrial arts expert. Having welded far more than I, he could easily have pushed me aside and said, “Let me show you how it’s done.”

As I begin this study of the Book of Revelation, I have the same kind of feeling as the day I was welding. We are a church in Dallas, Texas, the home of Dallas Theological Seminary and such world-renowned scholars as Dr. John F. Walvoord and Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, who have devoted themselves to the study of prophecy. Dr. Walvoord has authored a commentary on the Book of Revelation. To further complicate matters, I read this introduction on the subject of the second coming, written by Charles Hodge in his systematic theology:

The subject cannot be adequately discussed without taking a survey of all the prophetic teachings of the Scriptures both of the Old Testament and of the New. This task cannot be satisfactorily accomplished by anyone who has not made the study of the prophecies a specialty. The author, knowing that he has no such qualifications for the work, purposes to confine himself in a great measure to a historical survey of the different schemes of interpreting the Scriptural prophecies relating to this subject.²

The three-volume systematic theology in which these words were written was published five years before his death. At the time he wrote them, he was 75 years old. This would mean that Dr. Hodge had been teaching at Princeton Seminary over 50 years, the first 18 in the department of Oriental and Biblical Literature, and the next 32 in the department of Systematic Theology. Now, if a scholar and professor of over 50 years approached prophecy with such caution, what does that say to the rest of us!

Just how should we approach our study of the Book of Revelation? I have concluded we should first take the advice of Dr. Hodge and survey the broad subject of prophecy from both the Old and the New Testaments. We should approach Revelation in the same way we would prophecy in general. We should understand the nature of prophecy and the way in which it was fulfilled. We should remind ourselves of the problems prophecy presents, as well as the purposes for which prophecy was given. The purpose of this introductory lesson then is to lay a foundation of some basic principles by which prophecy should be studied and to align ourselves with the purposes for which the Book of Revelation was written.

With these things in mind, let us seek to set a course for our study of this great and final book of the Bible – the Book of Revelation. I encourage you to ask God to motivate you to study, meditate, and to worship through this book. I urge you to pray that God will enlighten your eyes and remove prejudice, personal preferences, and preconceived ideas so that He might speak to you through your study. In addition, I encourage you to scrutinize the things I teach in this series to discern truth from error, and divine principle from human perspective.

The Nature of Biblical Prophecy:
Lessons We Can Learn From Fulfilled Prophecy

A week ago a friend took me skeet shooting; clay pigeons were hurled from two towers, one on the left, and the other on the right. Every time, the pigeon traveled in virtually the same path. The point of this sport was to shoot at the clay pigeon and hit it, each time standing in a slightly different position. Since this was something I had never done before, my friend gave me some helpful words of instruction. He told me to begin at the point I intended to shoot and then to follow the path of the pigeon back toward the tower from which it would be ejected. As the “puller” sent the pigeon on its course, I would simply follow the course of the pigeon, slightly leading it, and pull the trigger. Now it isn't quite that easy, but if I did not hit the pigeon, at least I did not miss it as badly as I would have otherwise.

Interpreting biblical prophecy is similar. If we would correctly interpret and apply prophecy which is yet unfulfilled, we should first discern the course or the path which fulfilled prophecy has historically taken. We should deal with prophecy according to the nature or course of prophecy. If we would “hit the mark” in our study of the Book of Revelation, we must first retrace the course of prophecy from the Old Testament to the New. From this process, we will establish several governing principles for our study of the Book of Revelation, principles that should apply to the study of any prophecy.

(1) Some Old Testament prophecy was indirect rather than direct prophecy. This has taken me a number of years to embrace. There are prophecies that were clearly recognized as such at the time they were given. The promise in Micah 5:2 that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem is an example of a direct prophecy. Even the unbelieving Jewish religious leaders of Jerusalem recognized this (Matthew 2:1-6). But Matthew’s other “prophecies” in the first chapters of his Gospel are far from direct. Who would ever have read Hosea 11:1 and concluded this was a prophecy that Jesus would be brought by His parents out of Egypt and back to the land of Israel (Matthew 2:14-15)? Yet Matthew tells his readers that this fulfilled the prophecy of Hosea 11:1. Some prophecies were recognized as such only after their fulfillment. I would call these “indirect prophecies.”

(2) While prophecy may be figuratively or symbolically revealed, we can expect it to be literally fulfilled. In type,³the Messiah who was to come was portrayed as the bronze serpent, which was lifted up on a pole (Numbers 21:19; John 3:14), and as the Passover lamb (Exodus 12; John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:19; cf. 2:21-25). In Psalm 22, the passion of our Lord is described by the very terms which David used to portray his personal anguish of soul. In Isaiah 53, we have another prophecy of the atoning work of Israel’s Messiah. All these prophetic pictures were literally fulfilled. So, too, the prophecies that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:5-6) of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23) were literally fulfilled. Whether in symbol, in figure, or in direct statement, the prophecies of the Old Testament which have already been fulfilled were fulfilled literally. We should therefore expect that the prophecies which remain unfulfilled, those which pertain to the second coming of our Lord, will be literally fulfilled.

(3) Old Testament prophecy has almost always been fulfilled in a way that no one expected. Peter wrote of the prophets of old who were perplexed by what they had prophesied:

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who predicted the grace that would come to you searched and investigated carefully. 11 They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory. 12 They were shown that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things now announced to you through those who evangelized you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things angels long to catch a glimpse of (1 Peter 1:10-12).⁴

Peter tells us that the prophets themselves couldn’t put it all together. They diligently studied their own writings, but they were not able to comprehend their message so far as the person or the timing of events was concerned (verse 11). In particular, I believe Peter was referring to their perplexity over the two themes of prophecy: (1) the sufferings of Messiah; and, (2) His glory. How could it be that the same person could suffer for the sins of man (e.g., Isaiah 52:13—53:12) and yet reign in power and glory (e.g., Psalm 2)? How could these two things happen at the same time? No one was able to explain, before its fulfillment. How could prophecy speak of the humanity of the Messiah (e.g., His birth – Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2) and of His deity (e.g., Isaiah 9:6)?⁵

What the prophets failed to discern others did not comprehend either. While the chief priests and scribes knew that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-6), they so misunderstood the prophecies about Messiah that they conspired to murder Him. With the exception of a handful of individuals such as Mary, Simeon and Anna (cf. Luke 2), few realized prophecy was being fulfilled before their very eyes. Even Mary, the mother of our Lord, puzzled over what she had seen and been told (Luke 1:29; 2:19). The disciples did not fully grasp the events of our Lord’s life as fulfilled prophecy until after they had taken place (cf. John 16:12-24).

Why is it, then, that Christians today expect that prophecy can be neatly outlined, charted, mapped, and laid out in such a way that we can say with certainty just how the last days will come to a close? This kind of thinking flies in the face of what we learn from those prophecies which have already been fulfilled. No one, not even the prophets who recorded their prophecies, was able to “package” the Old Testament prophecies in a way that enabled them to comprehend or to communicate the way in which God’s promises would come to pass. Divine prophecy will always be puzzling until after its fulfillment. Only then will we see it all marvelously, literally, and meticulously fulfilled. And when that happens, none of us will be able to say, “Just as I predicted.”⁶

We have every reason to expect prophecy to be literally fulfilled, but we have little basis for supposing that we, at this point in time, can suggest precisely and dogmatically just how this will take place. Let us be suspicious of every neatly packed prophetic scheme, for why should we think we are better able to predict the specifics of our Lord’s second coming when the prophets of old were unable to outline the events of the first?

(4) Some prophecy may very well have multiple fulfillments.

(5) God reveals prophecy partially and progressively. One reason why the prophets of old could not understand the promises of God contained in their writings is that the plan was only partly revealed. Prophecy, at best, is partial:

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, 10 but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside… . 12 For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, 12).

We should not be surprised that the prophets had difficulty attempting to harmonize the two prophetic themes of suffering and glory, as Peter tells us (1 Peter 1:11). After all, the revelation the prophets received and communicated to us was partial. So, too, the prophecies pertaining to our Lord’s second coming are partial. We know this for certain because Paul has informed us in this Corinthian passage that all prophecy is partial. The prophecies we have been given are like the pieces of a puzzle. There are enough to give us a general idea of what lies ahead, but not enough to reveal the entire picture.

The New Testament informs us of certain truths, which are called “mysteries.” In its most elementary form, a mystery is a truth which would not be known apart from divine revelation, and which was not known until God did reveal it in the form of prophetic revelation. As an apostle, Paul was granted the privilege of making known certain “mysteries” (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; Ephesians 3:3). The partial hardening of Israel was such a mystery (Romans 11:15). Since the New Testament informs us of these truths called “mysteries” which were not made known in the Old, we see that the prophecies of the past were partial. Since Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 13 that all prophecy is partial, we must conclude that the unfulfilled prophecies of the Bible are partial prophecies. They provide pieces of the plans and purposes of God for the future, but not the entire picture.

Prophecy was never written to tell us history in advance. Some of us have enough trouble with learning history that is past. We hardly need to add to this a history of all the things which will yet occur. Dr. Hodge put it well when he wrote:

Prophecy is very different from history. It is not intended to give us a knowledge of the future, analogous to that which history gives us of the past… . In prophecy, instruction is subordinate to moral impression. The occurrence of important events is so predicted as to produce in the minds of the people of God faith that they will certainly come to pass. Enough is made known of their nature, and of the time and mode of their occurrence, to awaken attention, desire, or apprehension, as the case may be; and to secure proper effort on the part of those concerned to be prepared for what is to come to pass… . It follows, from what has been said, that prophecy makes a general impression with regard to future events, which is reliable and salutary, while the details remain in obscurity.⁷

Prophecy was therefore not given so much to detail the sequence of future events as it was to underscore the certainty of future events. We rightly heard the Old Testament prophet likened to one looking at two mountains in the distance. We point out that from afar one cannot see the valley between the two peaks. So, too, the prophets failed to discern that there were two comings of Messiah – the first to atone, the second to reign. From this, we must acknowledge that the sequence or the timing of Messiah’s coming(s) was not the intent of the Spirit of God, but rather to assure His people that He would fulfill His promises.

Why, then, do we not apply this principle to the prophecies of the future? Why do we think we can neatly map out the events of the future, in sequence, when the prophets of old could not do so? We can know with certainty that our Lord will come again to judge the earth and to deliver His people, but there will be gaps that we cannot and should not try to fill in because God reveals prophecy partially.

(6) We recognize prophecy partially. Many Old Testament prophecies were recognized as prophecy. Micah’s prophecy that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (5:2) was understood as such (Matthew 2:5-6). Other passages were regarded as prophetic, even though they were not understood (cf. 1 Peter 1:11). But there are other instances in the New Testament where an event in the life of our Lord was said to be the fulfillment of a passage not considered prophetic. For example, the Lord’s return from Egypt to Israel was explained by Matthew as a fulfillment of the “prophecy” of Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt did I call My Son” (Matthew 2:15). The purpose of such prophecies was not to enable men to anticipate an event ahead of time, but to accept it as fulfilled prophecy after its fulfillment.

(7) Prophecy is particularly profitable to those who can look back on its fulfillment. Peter wrote in his first epistle that though the prophets of old studied their own works in an effort to understand it, they were informed by revelation that their ministry was particularly intended for the benefit of those who would understand it in the light of its fulfillment:

It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven – things into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:12).

One need only read through the Gospels to be reminded of the truth of Peter’s words. Over and over, we are told by the writers of the Gospels that the events recorded were the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The preaching of the apostles was based upon the premise that Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (cf. Acts 2). The Book of Revelation, as all other prophecies yet unfulfilled, will be most meaningful to those to whom it can be said, “These things took place, in order that it might be fulfilled… .”

(8) Biblical prophecy was seldom fulfilled in the lifetime of those who received it. When you stop to think about it, few Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the lifetime of those who first received them. For that matter, few prophecies have been fulfilled in the lifetime of those who have read and studied them. Periods of fulfillment are short and infrequent when compared to the periods of expectation. While men have hoped for the fulfillment of prophecy in their day, few have seen it come to pass. The point I am trying to make is that prophecy would be of little value to the people of God if it were meaningful only to those who lived during the time of its fulfillment. While you and I should hope to see our Lord return, as well as seek to hasten it (2 Peter 3:12), history should teach us that most of those who hoped to see prophecy fulfilled in their day did not.

(9) All prophecy is pertinent to the present. While it is true that prophecy has a particular benefit to those who study it in the light of its fulfillment, prophecy is profitable for all. This is a necessary conclusion from Paul’s words to Timothy and to the Romans:

16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

4 For everything that was written in former times was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through encouragement of the scriptures we may have hope (Romans 15:4).

Peter agrees when he writes:

11 Since all these things are to melt away in this manner, what sort of people must we be, conducting our lives in holiness and godliness, 12 while waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God? Because of this day, the heavens will be burned up and dissolve, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze! (2 Peter 3:11-12)

Prophecy is much more than a mere telling of the future. Prophets are vastly different from fortune tellers. The prophet’s role was to incite his listeners to godly living. The reader was urged to remember that God is sovereign over history and that His promises are sure. Through biblical prophecy, the godly will be encouraged to live pure and righteous lives and to be willing to suffer and sacrifice in the present in order to participate in the certain blessings of God’s future promises. In this way, prophecy is profitable to every reader who will hear and obey God’s Word, regardless of whether or not these prophecies are fulfilled in his lifetime. That is why John can say to the reader of the Book of Revelation,

3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near (Revelation 1:3).

These are some of the lessons which we should learn from the prophecies of the past. Let us not forget them as we seek to study the prophecies which are still future.

The Problems of Prophetic Study

One of the reasons I have waited so long to teach a prophetic book of the Bible is that I have been sensitive to all the problems associated with such a study. Let me mention some of these so that we may be alert to the difficulties and dangers inherent in this study. Let me also say that there is danger in the study of any doctrine or book of the Bible. The solution is not to avoid study, but to learn from the Scriptures and from the history of the church so that we do not perpetuate these errors.

(1) A word of caution about curiosity. By its very nature, prophecy is mysterious. That can be good, but it also can be a hindrance. Curiosity can be a dangerous commodity.⁸ Suppose someone comes to you and says, “I want to confess that I am having an affair.” You might respond, “With your secretary?” It is possible, even likely, that curiosity is the source of this question, not genuine concern. The same curiosity can be aroused by our study of prophecy. We would like to know certain details more to satisfy our curiosity than to conform our lives to Christ.

It is very easy to deceive ourselves here by the use of semantics. We may speak of prophecy as “deep” spiritual truth. Truth that is deep, in my estimation, is that which leads to mature Christian living. The writer to the Hebrews wrote:

1 Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this is what we intend to do, if God permits (Hebrews 6:1-3).

Did you notice what the writer to the Hebrews said? Among the elementary truths which he wished to leave behind were those constituting the content of prophetic study.⁹ Let us beware, then, when someone refers to prophetic study as “deep.” Often what we call deep is only obscure and speculative. The reason others (naturally those less spiritual than we) cannot see the “deep truths” we see may be because they are not there, not because they are on a higher spiritual plane. What is truly important is what God says most frequently and most frankly.

29 Secret things belong to the Lord our God but those that are revealed to us and our descendants forever are shown so that we might accomplish all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29).

6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn “not to go beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of the one against the other (1 Corinthians 4:6).¹⁰

(2) Beware of “straining gnats and swallowing camels.” Our Lord spoke of the scribes and Pharisees as “straining gnats and swallowing camels” (Matthew 23:24). Prophecy provides a pretext for those who wish to practice this. We are guilty of this abuse whenever we focus on the minutia of prophecy and overlook the message. I have already warned you that we are likely to make many mistakes in the details, just as the men of old have done. Paramount is the clear and emphatic message of prophecy, not the minutia.

The disciples of our Lord had a problem here; they were preoccupied with the wrong things with respect to prophecy. First, they were preoccupied with the timing of God’s program. Over and over, they asked Him when these things would take place (Matthew 24:3; Acts 1:6). How and when the kingdom would be established was almost a fetish for the disciples. Jesus consistently avoided answering their questions on “the time,” focusing instead on how they ought to live in the light of His return (cf. Matthew 24-25; Acts 1:6-8).

The disciples also had an unhealthy interest in their role in the kingdom. They thought about the future in terms of their prestige, their power, and their position, an attitude which Jesus sought to correct (cf. Mark 10:35-45). Is it any wonder that American Christians are so interested in where America fits into God’s prophetic scheme?

Common sport among Christians is to play the game of “Who’s who in prophecy.” Is the antichrist Saddam Hussein? Is a powerful computer in Europe a part of the satanic program? Of course Satan is constantly grooming a man for the job. But we are not often profited by speculation. The same could be said for date setting. This practice has only served to make Christians a laughing stock. The words of Peter should serve to warn us about the dangers of speculation or, in his words, “private interpretations:”

20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

While we have often heard this passage applied to teaching in general, Peter wrote these words specifically regarding the interpretation of prophecy. I believe that he strongly warned us about speculation here.

“Straining gnats and swallowing camels” can also be seen in the area of theology. The theological study of prophecy is known in academic circles as “eschatology,” the study of last things. Evangelicals are often divided and strongly debate with each other over the issue of the rapture. Does the rapture come before, during, or after the great tribulation? Some don’t think there even is a rapture at all. Others say there is no millennium. While all these matters are important, they are not critical. Faith in Christ alone for one’s salvation will get one to heaven, in spite of one’s flawed eschatology (and all of our eschatologies are flawed). The primary message of prophecy is often the same, regardless of one’s eschatology: Jesus Christ is coming soon to judge the earth, to rid it of evil, and to establish His kingdom. That truth should transform our lives, even though we will disagree about the details. Let us beware of “straining gnats and swallowing camels.”

(3) Watch out for inappropriate application. Any doctrine can be twisted in such a way that our actions are an abuse of truth. In Romans 5 and 6, we see that the doctrine of the grace of God can be twisted to the point that we use it as a pretext for sin. So, too, even a correct interpretation of prophecy can result (because of our own sinfulness) in an ungodly response on our part. Those (of us) who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture could misapply this doctrine by rejoicing because of man’s evil (surely this proves that the Lord’s return is near), rather than by actively resisting it (even though it won’t usher in the kingdom). Every eschatological position, whether right or wrong, has it own forms of applicational heresy. It is true that wrong doctrine leads to wrong practice. But right doctrine can also lead to wrong practice if we are not careful.

Prophecy in the Light of Its Purpose

Having warned us to be cautious in the light of the problems which have plagued Christians through the years, let me conclude this lesson by highlighting the purposes of prophecy. If we are to correctly interpret and apply the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, we must study this book in the light of the purposes of prophecy as described in the Scriptures.

(1) Prophecy is used as proof of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. Fulfilled prophecy authenticates the Word of God. The Old Testament prophet would sometimes give a distant prophecy, accompanied by a near prophecy. The purpose for the near prophecy was to authenticate both the prophet and his distant prophecy. Our Lord staked His entire ministry and message on His ability to fulfill the prophecy that He would rise from the grave (cf. Matthew 12:38-40; cf. 27:63). In both the Gospels and Acts, the message of the gospel was proclaimed on the basis of the authentication of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in fulfillment of prophecy (cf. Acts 2:14-36; 3:18-26).

Prophecy is a powerful authentication of the Word of God. It is little wonder that many in our time have been won to Christ through the instrumentality of books such as The Late Great Planet Earth, or more recently, the Left Behind series. Prophecy gives credibility to the proclamation of the gospel. If one would dispute the Word of God, he or she must first disprove the Bible’s claim of fulfilled prophecy.

(2) Prophecy should produce hope in the life of the Christian, which, in turn, promotes purity and perseverance. This is one of the predominant themes of prophecy in the Bible. If God’s Word is true and God’s promises are sure, then we are to pursue purity:

2 Dear friends, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is. 3 And everyone who has this hope focused on him purifies himself, just as Jesus is pure (1 John 3:2-3).

If God judges sin, which fulfilled prophecy demonstrates, we dare not persist in willful sin:

25 Take care not to refuse the one who is speaking! For if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less shall we, if we reject the one who warns from heaven? 26 Then his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “I will once more shake not only the earth but heaven too.” 27 Now this phrase “once more” indicates the removal of what is shaken, that is, of created things, so that what is unshaken may remain. 28 So since we are receiving an unshakable kingdom, let us give thanks, and through this let us offer worship pleasing to God in devotion and awe. 29 For our God is indeed a devouring fire (Hebrews 12:25-29).

The assurance and hope which prophecy produces should cause us to live in this world as though its pleasures were temporary and to invest in the world to come, where its blessings are eternal (2 Peter 3:11-12). Prophecy encourages the saint to persevere in resisting evil and in pursuing what is righteous:

32 If from a human point of view I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what did it benefit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die… . 58 So then, dear brothers and sisters, be firm. Do not be moved! Always be outstanding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:32, 58).

Therefore encourage one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

11 Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, just as you are in fact doing (1 Thessalonians 5:11).

(3) Prophecy tells us the goal of human history. Prophecy tells us where God is going in history. It informs man of God’s purposes and exhorts men to conform their lives to God’s goals. If we would desire to serve God, we must seek to work toward His goals. Prophecy gives us a goal which causes us to renounce former ambitions, shun what we used to seek, and live in the light of our ultimate purpose and calling in Christ:

8 More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I might gain Christ, 9 and be found in him, not because of having my own righteousness derived from the law, but because of having the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness. 10 My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already attained this—that is, I have not already been perfected—but I strive to lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus also laid hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself to have attained this. Instead I am single-minded: Forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out for the things that are ahead, 14 with this goal in mind, I strive toward the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:8-14).

(4) Prophecy should create in us a sense of urgency. One of the most common maladies of the Christian life is apathy. Unbelieving scoffers reject the warnings of future judgment, secure in their self-delusion that everything is continuing on as it has from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4). Prophecy is given to stir us up, to be ready for the Lord’s return, and even to hasten its coming:

32 “Learn this parable from the fig tree: whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near, right at the door” (Matthew 24:32-33).

“Therefore stay alert, because you do not know the day or the hour” (Matthew 25:13).

… while waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God? Because of this day, the heavens will be burned up and dissolve, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze! (2 Peter 3:12)

1 Now on the topic of times and seasons, brothers and sisters, you have no need for anything to be written to you. 2 For you know quite well that the day of the Lord will come in the same way as a thief in the night. 3 Now when they are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would. 5 For you all are sons of the light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of the darkness. 6 So then we must not sleep as the rest, but must stay alert and sober (1 Thessalonians 5:1-6).

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon… . 3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near (Revelation 1:1a, 3).

As we approach our study of the Book of Revelation, let us study this prophecy in a way that is consistent with the principles of prophecy that can be learned from the prophecies of the past. We should understand that God has not told us everything that will happen, and that we will not fully understand even what has been revealed. Let us seek to avoid the pitfalls which Satan would use to distort or distract us from the purpose God has for us in this prophecy. And let this prophecy stir our souls to worship, obedience, and perseverance. May the person of Christ and our reunion with Him be our goal and our consuming desire.

²Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman, 1977 [reprint]), Vol. III, p. 790.

³“A type is a shadow cast on the pages of OT history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the NT revelation.” Wick Broomall, “Type, Typology,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), pp. 533-534. I suggest the reader consult this article for a fuller definition and explanation of the use of “types” in the Bible.

⁴Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the NET Bible. The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, also known as THE NET BIBLE, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD (compact disk). Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others. It is available on the Internet at: www.netbible.org.

⁵Jesus put this perplexing question to His detractors: How could David call his son his Lord (Matthew 22:42-46)?

⁶It is true that we have a greater grasp of prophecy today because of what has already been fulfilled. An appreciation of the concept of progressive revelation enables us to see more and more truth as time goes on. The Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12:1-3, for example, is spelled out in greater detail throughout the Old Testament period. Nevertheless, while more details were known, the Old Testament saint was still not able to explain them as a whole, just as Peter indicated in chapter 1 of his first epistle.

⁷Hodge, Vol. III, pp. 790-791.

⁸Note, for example, the warning of Deuteronomy 12:29-32, where curiosity may lure one into false worship.

⁹The things the writer to the Hebrews would call deep (he actually calls them “solid food” in 5:12) are not really the most crucial either. The most important truths are the elementary truths having to do with repentance, faith, and eternal judgment. These are the truths which determine a man’s eternal destiny. But once having learned these essential truths, we must press on to those truths which lead to maturity. “Meaty” truth is truth which facilitates maturity. Speculating about obscure truth is simply a waste of time, for it keeps us from pressing on to maturity.

¹⁰See also 1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 2:23.

Foreword to Principles of Spiritual Growth

A friend once handed me a copy of a book entitled The Green Letters, written by Miles J. Stanford. After reading the first few pages, I knew I had something in my hand that was extraordinary. Day by day during my devotional time I read at least one section and found the book to contain one of the most practical approaches to the various areas of my spiritual life that I have ever read. I asked others to read it, and they confirmed my impressions.

The various parts of the book were originally prepared as short letters and were sent to a number of interested friends. They were then compiled into the book which was known as The Green Letters, but in order to make this new printing meaningful to a new audience, the title has been changed to Principles of Spiritual Growth. We are thankful for permission from the author to publish this book for the benefit of a larger group of friends.

Set forth in this book are basic principles pertaining to the Christian’s spiritual exercises. These principles are stated in such practical form that you will find it rewarding to read and reread them and, of course, to put them into practice. Some aspects of the Christian life and walk which may have been puzzling to you will become clear as the Spirit of God is able to make them a reality in your daily life.

While certain sections may be of such interest as to entice one to read them first, it would be best to read the sections in the order they appear. They are in a logical sequence, and precept is laid upon precept (Isa. 28:10). We trust there will be a wide distribution of these truths.

Theodore H. Epp
Director
Back to the Bible Broadcast

You are here

Darwinism and New England Theology

Introduction

A Definition of Darwinism

Theory of the Mechanics of Evolution

The Criteria of Darwinian Evolution Are Met

The Entrance of Darwinism into New England Theology

Conclusion

Bibliography

The Non-Pauline Epistles

Introduction

Hebrews

Author and Title:

The Recipients:

Date: A.D. 64-68

Theme and Purpose:

Key Words:

Key Verses:

Key Chapters:

Christ as Seen in Hebrews:

Outline:

James

Author and Title:

Recipients:

Date: A.D. 45 or 46

Theme and Purpose:

Key Words:

Key Verses:

Key Chapters:

Christ as Seen in James:

Outline:85

First Peter

Author and Title:

Recipients:

Date: A.D. 63-64

Theme and Purpose:

Key Word:

Key Verses:

Key Chapter:

Christ as Seen in 1 Peter:

Outline:

Second Peter

Author and Title:

Recipients:

Date: A.D. 67-68

Theme and Purpose:

Key Word:

Key Verses:

Key Chapters:

Christ as Seen in 2 Peter:

Outline:

First John

Author and Title:

Recipients:

Date: A.D. 85-90

Theme and Purpose:

Key Words:

Key Verses:

Key Chapter:

Christ as Seen in 1 John:

Outline:

Second John

Author and Title:

Recipients:

Date: A.D. 85-90

Theme and Purpose:

Key Words:

Key Verses:

Key Chapters:

Christ as Seen in 2 John:

Outline:

Third John

Author and Title:

Recipients:

Date: A.D. 85-90

Theme and Purpose:

Key Word:

Key Verses:

Key Chapters:

Christ as Seen in 3 John:

Theory of the
Mechanics of Evolution

The Criteria of
Darwinian Evolution Are Met

The Entrance of
Darwinism into New England Theology

Outline:⁸⁵

An Outline of 1 Peter⁵⁵

A Grammatical Layout,
Outline and Translation of the Passage

Introduction¹