• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: 1 Peter 2

A Brief Biblical Theology of Hosea’s Two Children: Lo-ami and Lo-ruhamah

10 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Hosea, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter 2, Hosea, Hosea 1, My People, No-Mercy, Romans 9, Second Exodus

(note for a Bible Study)
In Hosea 1, the prophet has two children who received the God-given names, Lo-ami (not my people) and Lo-ruhamah (no-mercy/compassion). These children will be emblems for the rejection of the Kingdom of Israel – and also tokens of hope, because God will again show mercy upon “my people”.

To rightly understand the significance of these names, we need to understand the biblical theology which underscores these names. The names have roots in the covenant and tie us to the New Testament.

“my people”

While the primary uses for Hosea come from Exodus, there uses in Genesis which help us understand the significance.

The phrase “my people” has the obvious significance of one’s own familial relations. So Ephron the Hittite uses the phrase “my people” in Genesis 23:11 to refer to his relations. It used in a similar way by Jacob in Genesis 49:29, when he speaks of death, when “I am to be gathered to my people.”

The phrase not only means relations, it also signifies dominion or kingship. So, Pharaoh in Genesis 41:40 refers to the people of the kingdom as “my people”.

God first uses the phrase “my people” when speaking to Moses from the burning bush in Exodus 3, “I have seen the affliction of my people”. Ex. 3:7. Moses is sent to Pharaoh to rescue “my people.” Ex. 3:10

When Moses comes to Pharaoh, he gives the command of the Lord, “Let my people go.” Ex. 5:1. Moses then repeatedly uses the phrase to refer to the Israelites, 7.4, 7.16, 7.26, 8.16. Indeed, one level of understanding of the conflict is a dispute between God and Pharaoh over who has dominion over Israel.

Finally, Pharaoh makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt (a distinction which God first made) when he tells Moses, “go out from among my people”. Ex. 12:31.

God then Israel out to the wilderness where he makes a covenant with them. There was also an earlier covenant with Abraham which was the (a?) basis for the designation of the descendants of Abraham as “my people”.

God then speaks to Israel and tells them that when they interact with another Israelite, they are meeting one who belongs to God, “My people”. Ex. 22:24

When God comes to establish a king over Israel, he is to protect “My people”. 1 Sam. 9:16. David is then given the task of caring for “my people”. 2 Sam. 3:18, 5:2, 7:7.

When Solomon comes to the throne, the Lord makes a covenant with Solomon, that if Solomon will keep the covenant, God will not “forsake my people”. 1 Kings 6:13 [Solomon of course fails in this respect. But a second and greater son of David will come who will be king and will keep the covenant; thus, the Lord will never forsake “my people”]

The people fail in their covenant with God, and so God addresses the fault of “my people”. Isaiah 1:3, “my people do not understand.” “My people have committed two evils”. Jer. 2:31 “My people have forgotten me.” Jer. 18:15

But there will be a restoration of “my people”. The Servant will be “stricken for the transgression of my people.” Isaiah 53:8. The “days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will restore the fortunes of my people”.

Ezekiel 37:13 (ESV)
13 And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people.

This is the promise of Hosea, and of the other prophets, e.g., Joel 2:26-27.

As for compassion/mercy, that too is anchored in the Mosaic covenant and extends through the exile to the restoration (the Second Exodus)

In Exodus 33:19 (the first use of this particular word), God announces this compassion as his sovereign prerogative:

Exodus 33:19 (ESV)
19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

God speaks of compassion as a fundamental benefit of keeping his covenant. Dt. 13:18-19. In 2 Kings 13:23, God determines to show compassion upon Israel, because of his covenant.

God then says, because his people will not keep covenant, he will no longer show them compassion. Is. 9:17, 27:11. And those who bring the judgment will themselves have no compassion. Is. 13:18, Jer. 6:23, 13:14, 21:7.

But with the judgment there comes a promise of future compassion. While there will be repentance, the compassion begins in God. Jer. 31:20. Yet, the compassion will begin when they repent. Dt. 30:3, 1 Kings 8:50, Is. 30:18, 55:7; Jer. 12:15, 30:18, 31:20, 50:42; Micah 7:18; Zech. 10:6 The judgment is temporary, it is compassion which will be eternal. Is. 54:8-10; Lam. 3:32.

There are also prayers for God’s future compassion and restoration: Zech. 1:2; Ps. 103:13.

The two strands (both laid out by Hosea’s children) are brought together in the NT:
Romans 9:15–26 (NASB95)
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25 As He says also in Hosea,
“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’ ”
26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

1 Peter 2:9–10 (NASB95)
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Church as the People of God

28 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Ante-Nicene, Ecclesiology, Philippians

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

1 Peter 2, Citizenship, Ecclesiology, images of the church, Michael Horton, Paul S. Minear, Philippians 3:20, The People of God

I am creating a new class on ecclesiology for The Masters College online Christian Ministry degree. This is undergraduate course and is intended to introduce students to basic concepts in ecclesiology. Here are some rough draft notes for the introductory lecture on the subject of the church as “the people of God”:

THE PEOPLE OF GOD OVERVIEW

The NT contains a series of images which portray the church as “the people of God”. Sometimes the Scripture expressly calls the church “the people of God”; however, that precise image (“the people of God”) is much more common in the OT than in the NT. Michael Horton explains:

 The New Testament typically substitutes ekklesia [church] (from the Hebrew qahal, “assembly” or “gathering”) for “people of God.” Yet this reflects the new thing that God is doing in these last days…In ecclesiological terms, it is a progression from “people of God” (as promise) to ekklesia (as fulfillment). The church is the end-times gathering of the scattered sheep of Israel and the nations under the sovereign care of Yahweh the Good Shepherd. (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, 719-720)

The image of the Church as “the people of God” emphasizes: (1) God is the one who calls and forms the new people; and (2) the primary relationship of the people in the Church is their relationship to God: the people in their Church are defined by that relationship, “The people of God.”

Paul S. Minear in Images of the Church in the New Testament writes:

 A second misconception stems from the habit of applying the term to all men as men. “People are like that!” We do not often use the word in the plural. By contrast, when the New Testament writers want to refer to all men they speak either of Adam, the representative of man, or they speak of “all the peoples.” Humanity is not visualized as a world-wide census of individuals, but as the separate peoples that, taken together, comprise mankind as a whole. Each people retains its own discrete unity. Therefore, to identify a particular society as the people of God is immediately to set it over against all other peoples. This people and it alone has been constituted in a special way by God’s action, by his taking it for his own possession. Henceforth I can be spoken as his own people. To avoid to misconceptions, then, it is well to take the phrase as a whole and to accent the article and the prepositional phrase: the people of God. (68)

The church is what it is because God has done something: God has created a people for himself, for his glory:

 1 Peter 2:9–10 (ESV)

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Christians were seen as a new thing, a new race of people. There was a letter written sometime during the 2nd century A.D. which discusses the belief and lives of the Christians. The unknown begins his letter as follows:

 Since I see most excellent Diognetus, that you are extremely interested in learning about the religion of the Christians and are asking very clear and careful questions about them–Specifically, what God do they believe in and how do they worship him, so that they all disregard the world and despise death, neither recognizing those who are considered to be gods by the Greeks, nor observing the superstition of the Jews; what is the nature of the heartfelt love they have for one another; and why has this new race of men away of life come into the world we live in now and not before? (trans. Michael W. Holmes)

To be a Christian is to belong to a new race of people; an identity which supersedes all other identities and allegiances, for our new status is the people of God . That identity will be one that we keep forever. Our citizenship in various countries, for instance, will only last as long as we live. Yet, our heavenly citizenship, as Paul calls it in Philippians 3:20, will last as long as God lives.

 

The Christian Life in a Foreign Land

23 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Obedience, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter, 1 Peter 2, 1 Peter 2:18-20, Greek Grammar, Imperatives, Obedience, Participles

(Some notes on 1 Peter 2:18-20):

 “If we are asking for a connecting thread in this crucial second argument, it is that Christians are called to live exceptional lives, even amid various sorts of suffering, for the glory of God and so as to be good witnesses to outsiders” (Withering, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. II, 135)

The entire life of the Christian takes place in a foreign land. The honor and shame of the Christian must not be measured by the current culture, but rather by the call of God and the honor of the world to come (the grace which is coming, 1 Peter 1:13). This burden will seem (often) unfair and unbearable. Yet,

We have not so learned Christ as to be pickers and choosers when the fruits of his lips are before Us. Yet have I known professors of that sort, who would fain rend the Master’s vesture that they might have only the softest part of it to be a pillow for their idle heads. “That,” they say, “was a gospel sermon, sweet food for our souls,” because it happened to tell of what Christ has done for us; but on the next occasion they cry out, “That was not a gospel sermon; it was legal; it laid a burden upon our shoulders,” because it dared to tell of what Christ has commanded us to do for him. Bach men, it seems to me, accept Christ for a servant rather than for a Master. They are glad that he shall do this or that for them that he shall, in fact, gird himself and wait at their table while they sit down to meat; but if they had learned better they would have chosen Christ for a Master, and would have been willing to gird themselves at his command and wait on their Lord, counting it their honor to be servants of so divine a Prince.

Spurgeon, “Heroic Christianity” Vol. 27, pp. 123-124

 

Section on Household Servants:

 

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 1 Peter 2:18–20 (ESV)

 

Household servants

1 Peter 2:18–20 (SBLGNT)

18 Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς. 19 τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις εἰ διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ ὑποφέρει τις λύπας πάσχων ἀδίκως· 20 ποῖον γὰρ κλέος εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι ὑπομενεῖτε; ἀλλʼ εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε, τοῦτο χάρις παρὰ θεῷ.

 

Οἱ οἰκέται:

The household servants/slaves.

The construction may be either vocative or nominative. Nominative is more likely, in that Peter will address wives and husbands directly in the following sections. Jobes notes the fact of Peter directly addressing slaves (and later wives), which was not done in the broader culture (Jobes 185).  The “articular nominative in address” (Selwyn, 175).

ὑποτασσόμενοι:

submissive

This is not “obey” unconditionally.  “Michaels then notes that unconditional and unquestioned ‘obedience’, hypakoe, is a term reserved for the Christian’s relationship to God in Christ….since Peter under no circumstances would advise Christians to compromise their faith or obedience to God in order to comply with some lesser authority figure, we should see the verb hypotasso here as applied to one’s relationship to a non-Christian ruler, master or husband … as meaning something closer to ‘defer’ or ‘respect’ rather than ‘submit’ or ‘subject’ in English. I agree” (Witherington, 131).

Predicate adjective: submissive, in order. The question here is , Is the form of “to be” implied? It can be translated, Household servants submitting.  If “to be” is implied then what choice is made? You servants are submissive, should be submissive, must be submissive? The same grammatical structure is used for both wives and husbands: Article, noun, participle as a predicative adjective.

The answer seems to be in context.

First, there is no need to read the participle as an imperative, per se.  It seems reasonable to understand word forms to function as they most commonly do.  Second, Peter did use this exact verb as an imperative in the introduction to this section of the letter, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution ….” (1 Peter 2:13). Therefore, if Peter had wanted to use the imperative, he could have done so.

For a discussion of the rhetorical unit running from 2:11-3:12, see Witherington.

Third, what is the relationship between the imperative and the participles?

A. Imperative: Give deference to every human institution:

1. General relationships

a. Governors

Excursus: Rationale and explanation

i.  You must represent God: “Christians are not just called to be good and honorable neighbors; they are also called to be good witnesses” (Witherington, 129).

ii. You are God’s freeman

b. Honor everyone

c. Love the brotherhood

d. Fear God

e. Honor the emperor

2. Special relationships

a. Slaves, by being submissive to masters

i. Remember, you must do this with fear toward God

ii. Remember you are God’s freeman.

iii. It is a credit to you.

b. Excursus of Christ’s example

c. Wives, by being submissive to your husbands

i. Rationale: This will be pleasing to God

ii. Rationale: To win your husband to Christ.

d.  Husbands: Understand your wives and treat her as fragile.

3. General relationships: Finally, all of you have unity, etc. 1 Peter 3:8

Rationale: , et cetera.

The imperative is in 2:13. By using the participle (he also uses a participle to introduce the husband’s role (3:7); adjectives followed by a participle are given in 3:8-9), he draws one’s attention back to the imperative which begins the section (2:13).

Commentators.


QUESTION—What relationship is indicated by the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι ‘submitting’?

  It is used as an imperative [BNTC, EGT, ICC, NIBC, Sel, TH, TNTC, WBC; all versions]. It resumes the thought of one of the previous imperatives [EGT, ICC]. It is an extension of the same imperative verb in 2:13 [NIC]. It extends the thought of ‘honor all’ by ‘being in subjection’ [Alf].

 

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Peter, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 96.

ὑποτασσόμενοι.—The most simple construction is to connect the Participle with the preceding Imperatives, especially with the τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε, to which the following ἐν παντἰ φόβῳ seems also to refer. It is the Apostle’s way to intertwine his sentences after this manner: the following exhortations begin with similar participial sentences, ch. 3:1, 7, 8, 9. We learn from it, that he considers the duties to which he exhorts included in the principal duty, v. 12. He particularizes the exhortation, v. 13, as to the manner how the fear of God should be evidenced, v. 17. (Lange, 1 Peter)

ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ

In all fear.

 Dative of manner – this is the manner in which they are (to be) submissive. Fear/respect. Is the fear toward God? Toward the master? Both? In 2:16, only God is honored with “fear”.

NAC, Schreiner:

The submission is to be carried out “with all respect.” The Greek literally says “with all fear” (en panti phobō). The NIV’s “with all respect” and the NRSV’s “with all deference” suggest that a proper attitude toward the master is in view.79 But this interpretation is unlikely, and the NIV should have retained the meaning of fear. In every instance in 1 Peter fear is directed toward God, not human beings (1 Pet 1:17; 3:2, 6, 14, 16).80 In fact, Peter spoke against fearing human beings in 3:6 and 3:14. The phrase “conscious of God” in 2:19 also constitutes evidence for this view. The reason slaves are to submit to masters is because of their relationship with God. Hence, we have evidence that masters are not to wield absolute authority over slaves. If they commanded slaves to violate God’s will, then slaves are obligated to disobey, even if they suffer because of their disobedience. (137)

 

τοῖς δεσπόταις

To masters. 

The dative is dictated by the participle: they are submissive to their masters.

οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν:

Not only to the good and gentle.

The construction assumes that the servant would already be submissive to a good master.

ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς

but also/even to the wicked.

Alla: marks a strong contrast.

Kai: marks a coordination. We are still speaking of masters. However, now we are speaking of wicked masters. 

Skolios means something twisted or bent, hence perverse or wicked (think use of the word in Out of the Silent Planet).

τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις

For this is grace

This is the first of two uses of the charis in the passage. ESV has “a gracious thing”. NASB 95, “this finds favor”. NIV84: “it is commendable”. NRSV, “it is a credit to you”. NET, “this finds God’s favor”. HCSB, “it brings favor”.

Peter has prayed for grace (1:2). He has commanded looking forward to receiving grace (1:13).  How then is this response a matter of “charis” (grace). Is it thankfulness toward God?  Is imitative of God?

32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. Luke 6:32–34 (ESV)

The emphasized words are all “charis”.  Should we better understand this sort of life as one evidencing the gracious work of God?

Titus points in this direction:

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Titus 2:11–13 (ESV)

Here Paul links the eschatological hope with the present appearance of God’s grace, which teaches us to renounce ungodliness as we turn our expectations towards the return of Christ.  Peter has commanded that we hope eagerly for grace – which will be ours in full in Christ appears.   The rationale for the behavior (submission) stems from the conduct of Christ who submitted in the present based upon his hope of a future judgment.

In 1:14-15, Peter ties the eschatological hope toward a life bent toward that hope; one not conformed to the present age, but rather one of “holiness”.

However, there is also an aspect of honor/credit here. The idea of “credit” will be explicitly raised in 2:20 (For what credit …). Thus, Peter is also responding to the shame of suffering and being in a subservient relationship (in the world’s system) by noting an alternative (and permanent) valuation which comes from God.

QUESTION—What is meant by χάρις ‘commendable’?

  It refers to a good action that merits approval or praise [TH] or which is thankworthy and which wins favor or gains recognition from God [Alf, NIC]. Χάρις can be either a gracious act or, as in this case, the response to a gracious act [NIBC, Sel]. It is used in the same sense as it is used in Luke 6:32ff. as an act that counts with God, merits ‘credit’ with him, or evokes his approval [Alf, EGT, ICC, IVP, NCBC, NIC, NTC, Sel, WBC]. It is explained by the parallel term κλέος ‘credit’ in 2:20 [BNTC, ICC, IVP, NCBC].

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Peter, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 98.

For this is grace.—The sense of these words is determined partly by the following χάρις παρὰ Θεῷ, partly by the antithesis ποῖον γἁρ κλέος. This question suggests that of our Lord, Lke. 6:32. “For if you love them, which love you, what thanks have you?” ποία ὐμῖν χάρις ἐστί; in Matt. it reads τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε. The ideas of thanks, reward and praise are here conjoined. Here as there the reference is to thanks, praise, or honour before God.   (Lange, 1 Peter).

 

 

Why would Peter make such strong demands of a servant when his master is perverse and harsh? There is no earthly reason to justify such commands, and so the answer must be found in the spiritual realm. It is there that Peter reminds his readers that such action is commendable (2:19). The word translated commendable is that which is frequently translated grace. It also can mean thanks or excellence. In the present context, the word means “patiently bearing unjust suffering. It does not here have its usual meaning of divine grace; rather, it is used in the sense of something pleasing to God.”

 

David A. Case and David W. Holdren, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude: a Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 82.

Summary application of the teaching of Jesus recorded in Luke 6:27–36 = Matt. 5:39–48.—χάρις seems to be an abbreviation of the O.T. idiom to find favour (תן) with God—cf. χάρις παρὰ θεῷ (20)—taken from St. Luke’s version of the saying, εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἔστιν (6:32).—Compare χάριτας = רצון that which is acceptable in Prov. 10:32.—διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ (i.) because God is conscious of your condition (θεοῦ subjective genitive), a reproduction of thy Father which seeth that which is hidden … (Matt. 6:4, etc.); so συνείδ. in definite philosophical sense of conscience is usually followed by possessive genitive OR (2.) because you are conscious of God (θ. objective genitive), cf. σ. ἁμαρτίας, Heb. 10:2. The latter construction is preferable: the phrase interprets διὰ τὸν κύριον with the help of the Pauline expression διὰ τὴν ς. (Rom. 13:5; 1 Cor. 10:25) employed in the same context.—πάσχων ἀδίκως, emphatic. Peter has to take account of the possibility which Jesus ignored, that Christians might deserve persecution; cf. 20, 25.—ποῖον κλέος, what praise rather than what kind of reputation (κλ. neutral as in Thuc. 2:45) cf. ποία χάρις τίνα μισθόν, (only twice in Job in LXX) corresponds to ἔπαινος above: χάρις παρὰ θεῷ shows that the praise of the Master who reads the heart is intended.—κολαφιζόμενοι, from description of the Passion, Mark 14:65, ἤρξαντό τινες … κολαφίζειν αὐτόν, cf. Matt. 5:39, ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει. So also St. Paul recalls the parallel between Christ’s and the Chrstians’ sufferings (1 Cor. 4:11) κολαφιζόμεθα.—ἀγαθοποιοῦντες, opposed to ἁμαρτάνοντες, explains ἀδίκως (19).—χάρις, see on 10. ver. 19.

 

J.H.A. Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume V: Commentary (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 60–61.

“Grace” refers here not to that which God gives freely (as, e.g., in 1:10, 13; 3:7; 4:10; 5:5, 10, 12: cf. BGD, 878.3b) but to that Milch counts with God or that with which God is pleased (cf. BGD, 877.2b). Peter’s τοῦτο γὰρ χάρισ͂ looks like a positive adaptation of the three-part rhetorical question (“what grace is yours?”) attributed to Jesus in Luke 6:32, 33, 34 (ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν: cf. Did. 1.3: ποία γὰρ χάρις). Negative adaptations of the same or similar questions can be found in Ignatius Pol. 2.1 (χάρις σοι οὐκ ἔστιν) and in 2 Clem. 13.4 (οὐ χάρις ὑμῖν): for the construction, cf. also certain manuscripts of 1 Cor 9:16 (οὐκ ἔστιν μοι χάρις, א* D* F G).

 

J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 139.

εἰ διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ

If due to consciousness of God

Peter has provided a wealth of theology up until this point. Thus, by keeping such things in mind – understanding the Triune God who has brought us to hope through the giving of Christ can lead one to the behavior.

Something is also present in this construction: The commendable/ the grace shows only when one suffers patiently when mindful of God. One could suffer patiently on all sorts of grounds. Yet, such suffering would not be gracious.

In addition, knowledge of God makes it possible to suffer rightly. The slave would suffer no matter the state of his heart. Yet, the worse part of the suffering is not the physical pain (suffering when “deserves” it merits no acknowledgement). It is the suffering unjustly. Therefore, a consciousness of God’s judgment to come permits one to know that the injustice will be righted. The slave need not be frustrated that there will never be a reckoning.

Black’s commentary (JND Kelley) 117:

The awkwardness of the genitive, if suneidēsis is assumed to signify ‘conscience’, was early appreciated and gave rise to the insertion of katharan (‘pure’) alongside theou in some MSS and in place of it in others. The correct solution lies in recognizing that (a) by all the rules of Greek usage the genitive can only be objective; and (b) suneidēsis (lit. ‘knowing-with’), while ordinarily signifying a knowledge shared with oneself (i.e. moral self-awareness, conscience), can also denote a knowledge shared with others (so almost certainly at Rom. 13:5: cf. TWNT VI, 914 f.). Thus the puzzling phrase here might be paraphrased, ‘because of the knowledge of God which he and his fellow-Christians share as members of God’s holy people’. This knowledge in the strength of which the Christian slave cheerfully bears affliction is not simply knowledge of God’s existence, but awareness of His whole relation to him and insight into His purpose for His people, as this is expounded more fully in

ὑποφέρει τις λύπας πάσχων ἀδίκως

One (tis) bear sorrow, suffering unjustly

 

Hupophero: Theword for enduraning/bearing itself implies an unhappy situation.

Lupe: Peter has already warned that we will suffer lupas, sorrow. A verbal form of the root is used in 1:6, “suffering in various trials”.

Paschon: participle draws out the nature of the endurance: enduring pain, suffering unjustly.

ποῖον γὰρ κλέος εἰ:

For what credit is it if

A very similar construction is used in Luke 6:32 (except the word translated ‘credit’ in Luke is “charis” and here it is “kleos”).

Kleos is almost ironic here: Kleos means  fame, or glory. This is part of the inversion which works throughout the letter. To suffer is incur shame. Yet Peter (and Jesus before him) speak of suffering in terms of glory!

ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι

sinning and being beaten

Two present participles describing the state of the slave: actively sinning, passively suffering a beating.

ὑπομενεῖτε:

You endure.

This is a different word than used in verse 19. This word is more neutral: it means to bear up under something, remain in place. Thus, in Acts 17:14, Silas and Timothy remained while Paul left. It can refer to a disagreeable circumstance; but that is determined by context.  By shifting verbs, Peter subtly marks the difference between the two circumstances.

ὑποφέρει comes close in its meaning to ὑπονενεῖτε (“patiently endure”) in v 20, but the two verbs are not identical, ὑποφέρειν refers to a passive kind of endurance (i.e., undergoing or submitting to affliction), while ὑπομένειν means to “stand one’s ground, hold out, endure” (BGD, 845.2) in a more active or positive sense, ὑπομενεῖτε is used absolutely both times it occurs in v 20, while ὑποφέρει not only takes λίπας as its object but depends on λύπας for its meaning. The whole expression ὑποφρ́ρει … λύπας is virtually equivalent to the single verb πάσχειν.

J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 140.

 

ἀλλʼ εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε

But if doing good and suffering you endure

The contrast is marked with the “alla”. “Ei” if sets off the next circumstance. The structure is parallel: A behavior of the slave, the response of the master, the response of the slave.

Sinning                                 Doing Good

Being beaten                      Suffering

Endure                                  Endure

τοῦτο χάρις

            this is grace

The same construction as opens v. 19, except for the omission of the “gar” (for) in v. 19.

Schreiner (NAC), notes that this second “grace” marks an inclusion.

Some might think Peter simply said that such suffering is “evidence of God’s grace” in one’s life. Two pieces of evidence, however, indicate that Peter thought of rewards rather than evidence of grace.91 First, the word “credit” (kleos) is parallel to the word “grace” (charis), and it can be defined as “credit,” “fame,” or “glory” (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.105, 115; 19.223; 1 Clem. 5:6; 54:3). It refers to the reward believers will inherit (cf. 1 Clem. 5:6), demonstrating that “grace” here is not “evidence of grace” but the divine favor, blessing, and reward given to believers on the last day. Second, the argument in v. 19 is quite similar to Luke 6:32–35, and Peter adapted that tradition here.92 Jesus in Luke argued that if people bestow love only on their friends, they are no different from unbelievers. What distinguishes believers from others is their love for enemies and sinners. Similarly, Peter insisted that suffering for doing wrong deserves no credit, but if one suffers for doing what is right, a reward is fitting. Interestingly, three times in Luke the reward believers would receive for showing love is conveyed through the word “grace” (charis), translated “credit” by the NIV (Luke 6:32–34). We see from this that the word “grace” can be a synonym for the word “reward.” Indeed, in the conclusion of the paragraph (Luke 6:35) Luke shifted from “grace” to “reward” (misthos), showing that the two terms are roughly synonymous here. Indeed, in the Matthean parallel (Matt 5:46) to Luke 6:32 the word “reward” (misthos) is used instead of “grace” (charis), constituting another piece of evidence that “grace” means reward in Luke 6:32. To sum up, when Peter said it is “grace” for someone to endure suffering because of their relationship with God, his point was that those who suffer in such a way will receive a reward from God and that the reward in context is their eschatological inheritance—future salvation.

 

παρὰ θεῷ

before God

That is, in the sight of.

Calvin:

To testify that it was acceptable to God, when any one from conscience towards God persevered in doing his duty, though unjustly and unworthily treated, was at that time very necessary; for the condition of servants was very hard: they were counted no better than cattle. Such indignity might have driven them to despair; the only thing left for them was to look to God.

 

It is, in short, a general truth, that what we do is approved by God, if our object be to serve him, and if we are not influenced by a regard to man alone. Moreover, he who considers that he has to do with God, must necessarily endeavor to overcome evil with good. For, God not only requires that we should be such to every one as he is to us, but also that we should be good to the unworthy and to such as persecute us.

Church and a Hostile State 1 Peter 2:13-17.1

11 Thursday Jul 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter, 1 Peter 2, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Church and State, Peter, politics

1 Peter 2:13–17 (ESV)

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

 

This text has some serious bite, because the government of which he writes killed him (and many other Christians).

 

Here are some notes:

 

Context:

Household Commands: 1 Peter 2:13-3:7,

Good deeds: 2:1- 4:11

Suffering: Expected: 1:6, 4:12 (5:7)

Pilgrim: 1:1, 2:11

 

Command: Be subject ….to every human institution

Detail: whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him

Qualification: Live as people who are free,

                        not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil,

                        but living as servants of God.

Repeated with detail:

Honor everyone.

Love the brotherhood.

 Fear God.

Honor the emperor.

 

Rationale:

A. Directly as relevant to God:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution

For this is the will of God,

that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

B. Civil Good: governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

Notes on God’s Glory:

Notes on Civil Good:

Therefore the Christian must be loyal to the government under which God’s providence has placed him. One form of government may be better than another; but any regular government is latter than anarchy. St. Paul bids us pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.” Government is from God; the form of it is determined, under God’s overruling providence, by man.

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Peter, The Pulpit Commentary (London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 82.

Objection:

It may, however, be objected here and said, that kings and magistrates often abuse their power, and exercise tyrannical cruelty rather than justice. Such were almost all the magistrates, when this Epistle was written. To this I answer, that tyrants and those like them, do not produce such effects by their abuse, but that the ordinance of God ever remains in force, as the institution of marriage is not subverted though the wife and the husband were to act in a way not becoming them. However, therefore, men may go astray, yet the end fixed by God cannot be changed.

John Calvin, 1 Peter: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 1 Pe 2:14.

Notes on Command of Subjection

1) What Does “be subject” mean?

1 Peter stays with ὑποτάσσειν consistently (2:18; 3:1, 5; cf. 5:5), except for one passing reference to Sarah within a biblical illustration (3:6). Otherwise “obedience” (ὑπακοή) is reserved for a person’s relationship to Christ by virtue of accepting the Christian message (1:2, 14, 22). Because “obedience” (ὑπακοή) is a primary and radical commitment while ὑποτάσσειν represents a secondary and more limited one, “respect” or “defer to” is a more appropriate translation for the latter than “submit to” or “be subject.”

J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 124.

Some scholars define “submit” to refer to “deference” or “respect” rather than obedience.37 It is lexically difficult, however, to wash the concept of obedience out of “submit.”38 Indeed, in 1 Pet 3:5–6 Peter glided from the verb “submit” in v. 5 to “obey” in v. 6 without any hint of discomfort. The idea of willing obedience (or failure to submit) is evident in a number of texts: Jesus’ submission to his parents (Luke 2:51), refusal to submit to God’s law (Rom 8:7), refusal to submit to God’s righteousness, the church’s submission to Christ (Eph 5:24), the need to be subject to God (Jas 4:7), and the submission of younger ones to elders (1 Pet 5:5). Other examples could be adduced, but the main point is clear. Michaels and Achtemeier criticize the translation “submit” by implying that it involves “total submission”39 and “unquestioning obedience to whatever anyone, including governing authorities, may command.”40 Their interpretations confuse context with lexicography. Whether or not submission involves “unquestioning obedience” cannot be determined by the term but by context. Translations like “defer” or “be considerate of” are simply too weak to convey the meaning of the word. The injunction to submit does not rule out exceptions, for God is the ultimate authority.41 They illegitimately use this point, however, to diminish the force of the command. Peter gave a command that represents a general truth, that is, he specified what Christians should do in most situations when confronting governing authorities. Believers should be inclined to obey and submit to rulers. We will see, however, that the authority of rulers is not absolute. They do not infringe upon God’s lordship, and hence they should be disobeyed if they command Christians to contravene God’s will.

 

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 127.

 

It is enough for us; our duty is to say, “Thy will be done,” and for his sake, in the consciousness that, in obeying those who are set over us, we are obeying the King of kings, to submit ourselves to every human ordinance. But that obedience is for his sake; therefore it cannot extend to unlawful commands. St. Peter himself had once said to the high priest, “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29; comp. also Acts 4:19; and the time was coming when brave Christian men and women would have to choose between renouncing Christ and the death of martyrdom. The disobedience would be “for the Lord’s sake.” The higher duty would overrule the lower. To “fear God and to keep his commandments is the whole duty of man;” this highest rule will guide the Christian under ordinary circumstances to obey human law and government, sometimes under exceptional circumstances to obey God rather than man. As a rule, Christians must be subject to the higher powers. Indeed, they are free; Christ hath made them free from the yoke of bondage. But they are the servants of God; his will should be the law of their lives; and his will is that Christian liberty should be orderly and sober. The soul is free from the bondage of sin; the outward life should be regulated by obedience to authority and law; and that for the glory of God, that the well-ordered lives of Christian people may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

 

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Peter, The Pulpit Commentary (London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 82–83.

 

2) “human institution”:

makes it appropriate to define its object as “every human creature” (i.e., every person). “Defer to every human creature” simply anticipates the command with which v 17 begins: “show respect for everyone.”

J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 124.

κτίζειν is used ordinarily in many senses, e.g., of peopling a country, of founding a city, of setting up games, feasts, altar, etc. In Biblical Greek and its descendants it is appropriated to creation. Here κτίσις is apparently selected as the most comprehensive word available; and the acquired connotation—creation by God—is ruled out by the adjective ἀνθρωπίνῃ. It thus refers to all human institutions which man set up with the object of maintaining the world which God created.

J.H.A. Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume V: Commentary (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 59.

The word for “ordinance” is κτίσις, which in classical Greek means “foundation,” as of a city; but in the New Testament is used elsewhere only of the works of God, in the sense of “creation,” or “a creature” (see Mark 16:15; Col. 1:23, etc.). Hence some, as De Wette, translate the words, “to every human creature,” supporting their view by ch. 5:5. But on the whole this seems unlikely; ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις is a strange and awkward periphrasis for ἄνθρωπος. It is better to understand it as meaning a human creation or foundation.

 

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Peter, The Pulpit Commentary (London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 73.

The first sub-division is concerned with the Christian in the state. But it opens with a general charge: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human creature. The Greek represented by the last three words (pasēi anthrōpinēi ktisei) is usually rendered either as ‘every human institution’ (RSV; NEB) or as ‘every institution ordained for men’ (RSVm, following Hort), but neither version is possible. So far from meaning ‘institution’, ‘ordinance’ (AV), or ‘authority’, the noun ktisis always in the Bible signifies ‘creation’ or, concretely, ‘creature’; and there is always the thought of God as Creator behind it. Further, it is inconceivable that the writer should have regarded the state or civil authorities as ‘ordinances of men’. These considerations rule out the former of the two customary interpretations. The latter, as well as missing the true import of ktisis, puts an intolerable strain on the adjective ‘human’.

 

J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1969), 108.

 

Objection: This cannot possibly be true? And if it is, what are the limits of the demands the govt can place upon one?

Objection: When is it no longer a legitimate govt? Can one every protest the govt?

 

A Pilgrim Mindset:

1:1, 2:1

Hebrews 11:13

 

Live in the world without being contaminated by it: 2 Cor. 6:17, Eph. 5:6-11, but even more so 1 Cor. 7:29-31

The Witness of the Church

02 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Ecclesiology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter 2, Suffering, Vindication, Witness

Studying for Sunday: 1 Peter 2:6-12: the vindication of Christ coming in judgment is tied to our suffering as Christians. Phil. 1:28-29; 2 Th. 1:5-10; Rev. 19:2; 2 Tim. 4:6-8; Jhn 15:18-20. Indeed, our present suffering is the first stage of Christ’s coming judgment. 1 Pet. 4:17-18. Christians are “the first ones to be tested in God’s judging action” (Jobes).

As we have already noted, the distinctive mode of sovereignty of the messianic ekklesia is decisively and critically embodied in and given to it by its own royal sovereign, the crucified Messiah. Its sovereignty is a participation in and reflection of his. Therefore, the church enacts and makes visible its “lordly”freedom in the patience, suffering, and “witness” (martyrion) it shows in the face of enmity and oppression. Martyrdom is the church’s crucial material witness to the Messiah’s own political rule; martyrdom is the bodily, visible sacrament of the church’s participation in Christ…

1 & 2 Peter, Douglas Harnick

Christ the Pattern in Suffering

01 Tuesday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Biblical Counseling, Edward Polhill, Hebrews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter, 1 Peter 2, Affliction, Biblical Counseling, Bunyan, Edward Polhill, Faith, Hebrews, John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, Self-denial, Suffering

The road of godliness through suffering runs narrow: complaints, despair, fear, faithlessness – sin of any kind lie close at hand. Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress must take a dangerously narrow path to survive the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

None know how to pass this Valley but the Lord, himself. Thus if we will pass safely we pass in the way marked by the Lord.

Edward Polhill in A Preparation for Suffering in an Evil Day writes that faith must take hold of the Lord and follow his pattern for the Christian to walk in holiness through suffering:

Faith looks to Christ as a pattern. He is not only a propitiation to be trusted in, but a pattern to be imitated by us. “He suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps,” (1 Pet. 2:21). Whom should we follow, but our Lord and Saviour? How can we spare our own blood, if we be washed in his? He drank up the bitter cup to the bottom, and shall we not take some drops of it? He bore the wrath of God for us, and shall we not bear the wrath of man for him? He learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and how much more should we poor creatures do so? He entered by suffering into glory; and why should we dream of another way thither? If we would be ready to suffer, let us look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame: let us consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest we be weary and faint in our minds, (Heb. 12:2, 3). The noble Alzearius, being asked how he could so patiently bear injuries, answered thus: I turn me to the injuries done to my Saviour.

Command and Application

18 Wednesday Apr 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Biblical Counseling, Prayer, Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter, 1 Peter 2, Affliction, application, Bible, Biblical Counseling, Prayer, Psalm 109, Psalms, wrong

The Bible is not constructed like a philosophy treatise which moves from axioms to conclusions. Rather, it is constructed like a law library: there are propositions, directions and commands; there are treatises which explain and apply the propositions; there are also cases: stories which illustrate and apply the propositions in real life circumstances.

Many Christians go astray when thinking through the propositions because they neglect the applications and descriptions provided.

Consider one: suffering affliction and adversity when doing good: Peter commands that we must bear this with grace. That is good, but what does I look like in practice: what am I suppose to do, what should I think, what should I say?

Here is the instruction by Peter:

20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.
23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

1 Peter 2:20-22.

Psalm 109 provides an example how this takes place in practice:

1 Be not silent, O God of my praise!
2 For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me, speaking against me with lying tongues.
3 They encircle me with words of hate, and attack me without cause.
4 In return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to prayer.

Psalm 109:1-4.

This also raises the issue of imprecatory Psalms-which is for another time.

The Purpose of Election

04 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Isaiah, John, Spiritual Disciplines

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter, 1 Peter 2, Edward Young, Election, Isaiah, Isaiah 43, John, John 2, John 4, Praise, Spiritual Disciplines, temple, Worship

Edward Young commenting on Isaiah 43:21:

Herein is stated the purpose of Israel’s election; they are to be a people that will praise their God.

Peter explains this further:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

1 Pet. 2:9.

Now compare Paul’s explanation of the purpose for election:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Eph. 1:3-6.

And Jesus:

23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.
24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 4:23-24. And how do we worship the Father? What temple may we enter?

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

John 2:19-21.

Now Peter draws the circle:

4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

So why does the Father elect? That the Father may give the elect to the Son (John 6:37 & 44). Such elect will then glorify the Son to the glory of the Father(John 5:23). The Father’s purpose is to elect worshippers.

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Study Guide, Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.3
  • Study Guide, Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.2
  • Study Guide: Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.1
  • Should I Look for Signs to Know God’s Will?
  • What If It Works?

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Study Guide, Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.3
  • Study Guide, Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.2
  • Study Guide: Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.1
  • Should I Look for Signs to Know God’s Will?
  • What If It Works?

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar