Hebrews - Revelation

David E. Garland, Tremper Longman III

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2011
• eBook ISBN: 9780310866244

Continuing a Gold Medallion Award-winning legacy, the completely revised Expositor's Bible Commentary puts world-class biblical scholarship in your hands.

A staple for students, teachers, and pastors worldwide, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC) offers comprehensive yet succinct commentary from scholars committed to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The EBC uses the New International Version of the Bible, but the contributors work from the original Hebrew and Greek languages and refer to other translations when useful.

Each section of the commentary includes:

• An introduction: background information, a short bibliography, and an outline
• An overview of Scripture to illuminate the big picture
• The complete NIV text
• Extensive commentary
• Notes on textual questions, key words, and concepts
• Reflections to give expanded thoughts on important issues

The series features 56 contributors, who:

• Believe in the divine inspiration, complete trustworthiness, and full authority of the Bible
• Have demonstrated proficiency in the biblical book that is their specialty
• Are committed to the church and the pastoral dimension of biblical interpretation
• Represent geographical and denominational diversity
• Use a balanced and respectful approach toward marked differences of opinion
• Write from an evangelical viewpoint

For insightful exposition, thoughtful discussion, and ease of use—look no further than The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

1 PETER

J. DARYL CHARLES

Introduction

1. History of Interpretation:Authorship,Attestation, Dating

2. Readership

3. Composition and Literary Integrity

4. Form Analysis

5. Literary Relationship to 2 Peter

6. Trends in Petrine Scholarship

7. Purpose and Prominent Themes

8. Bibliography

9. Outline

1. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION: AUTHORSHIP,ATTESTATION, DATING

The author of this letter identifies himself as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), “fellow elder” (5:1), and “witness of Christ’s sufferings” (5:1). Personal references to “Silvanus” (5:12 NASB; cf. Ac 15:22; 2Co 1:19; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1) and “my son Mark” (5:13; cf.Ac 12:12),^1. as well as allusion in 2 Peter 3:1 to “my second letter,” further buttress the case for apostolic authorship and strengthen the belief, existing among the Fathers, that the second gospel was commissioned by Peter.^2. On evaluating the letter, the reader becomes aware of the author’s personal and intimate identification with both his audience and the sufferings of Christ. This very tendency and tone have the effect of lending authority. Correlatively, as one might expect, the teaching and admonition being set forth in the letter are in full accord with and reminiscent of that of Jesus. The letter’s strong Christology, coupled with the related ethical implications, is precisely what one would expect from the apostle who had walked with Jesus, failed his master, and subsequently been entrusted with shepherding the flock of God.

If we assume the writer to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ life and ministry, much of the material in 1 Peter indeed seems to corroborate Jesus’ teaching recorded in the gospel narratives—for example, salvation through Christ being prophesied (1:10–12); salvation as ransom through the blood of Christ (1:18–19);the command to love one another (1:22); being born again (1:23); good deeds that glorify God (2:12); the admonition to submit to the authorities (2:13–15) and not retaliate (3:9); being blessed because of persecution and Christ’s name (3:13–17); allusion to the days of Noah (3:20); refusing to lord it over others (5:3); and not being anxious (5:7).^3.

A major obstacle for some (e.g., Beare, 28–30, and Craddock, 12) in accepting 1 Peter as genuinely Petrine is the stylistic polish and eloquence of the letter. This eloquence extends to vocabulary, syntax, acquaintance with the LXX, and the use of metaphors and rhetorical devices. According to this objection, the Peter depicted in Acts 4:13—wherein Peter and John are described as anthrÕpm oi agrammatoi kai idiÕtai [GK 2626], literally,“men [who are] illiterate and unlearned”⁴ —was not capable of a literary product such as 1 Peter. In response to this objection, others have argued that, following Peter’s conversion, thirty years of running a fishing business in a cosmopolitan port such as Bethsaida would virtually guarantee that Peter was bilingual, albeit with a thick accent (Mt 26:73), and thus be sufficient to overcome the stereotype of an illiterate and unlearned fisherman (so Hillyer, 2, and Grudem, 27–31).While this response is possible, it is not sufficiently plausible. The more plausible explanation is lodged within the text itself: “Through Silvanus, . . . I have written to you briefly” (5:12 NASB).As one commentator has remarked, these words indicate that “he [Silvanus] was more than merely Peter’s stenographer” (so Barclay, 43).

This Silvanus is doubtless the “Silvanus”of Paul’s letters (1Th 1:1;2Th 1:1 NASB) and the “Silas” of the book of Acts (15:37–40; 16:16–40; 17:10–15; 18:5–17). Silvanus must have been a significant figure in the early church, not only because he was a ministry companion to Paul, but also because he possessed Roman citizenship (Ac 16:37).We may infer from this that, in comparison to Peter, he was a well-educated and cultured individual.^5. Hence the thought belongs to Peter, while the writing in all probability belongs to Silvanus.^6.

Whereas the authenticity of the second letter bearing the apostle’s name has been doubted, throughout church history 1 Peter has been viewed as genuinely apostolic. Only more recently has this been called into question. The arguments against authenticity, in the main, tend to proceed from objections along literary/ stylistic and historical lines. Further response to those objections can be found in section 6 below.

In the end, what is striking is the relative absence of any credible voices that dissent from Petrine scholarship. With few exceptions, the Fathers held 1 Peter to be genuine. These witnesses include Irenaeus (Haer. 4.9.2; 5.7.2; 4.16.5); Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 3.11–12; 4.18–20; Clement is said by Eusebius [Hist .eccl. 6.25.8] to have offered commentary on all the “Catholic Epistles”); Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.3); Didymus (PG 39:1755); Augustine (Doctr. chr. 2.12); Oecumenius (PG 119:513); and possibly 1 Clement⁷ as well as Papias.^8.Several commentators (e.g., Kelly, 2; Michaels, xxxii; Guthrie, 760) find clear evidence of familiarity with 1 Peter in a letter from Polycarp of Smyrna to the believers in Philippi (early second century). Unlike 2 Peter, 1 Peter is not considered by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.3; 6.25) to be one of the antilegomena, the disputed books.^9. Several of the Fathers (e.g., Didymus the Blind; Oecumenius) recognized that the letter has close affinities to the letter of James and that both men were apostles, though Peter concentrated more on those living outside Palestine.^10. In the final analysis, attestation for 1 Peter’s authenticity appears as strong as any NT document.^11.

The dating of 1 Peter is linked both to questions of authorship and the manner in which persecution as it is mirrored in the letter is understood. If the letter is genuinely Petrine, it is generally assumed to be dated in the mid-sixties AD. The author gives the impression that he is presently “in Babylon” (5:13), most probably a cryptic reference to Rome. Although we lack sufficient evidence to be conclusive about the persecutions mentioned in the letter, traditional scholarship has assumed a date for 1 Peter in the early- to mid-sixties, either immediately preceding or concurrent with the early stages of Neronic persecution. If Neronic persecution is in advanced stages, however, the reference in 2:13–15 to the political authorities is problematic at best,^12. and the rhetorical question posed in 3:13 seems nonsensical.^13. For the minority of interpreters who assign the epistle a late dating, similarities between 1 Peter and the persecutions of Domitian¹⁴ or Trajan—as reflected, for example, in the letters to the emperor Trajan from Pliny, governor of the province of Bithynia (Pliny, Ep. Tra. 96, 97)—are typically adduced (of which Beare, 41–43, is representative).

What is the precise nature of the persecution to which the readers are subjected? And how are the sufferings on display in 1 Peter to be interpreted? A reading of the epistle suggests that the readers’ suffering is of a generic variety, that is, it is probably more with discrimination than with persecution per se that they have to contend.^15. The readers are said to “suffer for what is right” (dia dikaiosyne mpascho m[GK 4248], 3:14) and be “insulted because of the name of Christ” (oneidizesthe [GK 3943] en onomati Christou, 4:14); they endure “all kinds of trials” (poikiloi peirasmoi [GK 4280], 1:6) and “sufferings of Christ” (eis Christon pathemata [GK 4077], 1:11).

Their social situation further suggests itself through the admonition “Live such good lives among the pagans that . . . they may see your good deeds . . .” (2:12).This state of affairs is unchanging, even in the face of misunderstanding, alienation, and slander. Being misunderstood, alienated, and slandered are realities that accompany normative Christian living—realities that are described in the context of the household code (2:13–3:7), which speaks to normal social relationships. This impression is further supported by the letter’s opening admonition (1:13–16). The tone of this exhortation is decidedly ethical. Moreover, the sufferings in the body to which the readers are exposed are described in the context of being “done with sin” (pepautai hamartias, 4:1) and no longer living according to the flesh (en sarki, GK 4922), as the pagans live (4:2–3)—i.e., those who are surprised “that you do not plunge with them” into the same carnal excesses (4:4).The impression here is one of normative Christian living in pagan culture, a social context in which Christian discipleship stands in marked contrast. Significantly, the “purification” that the readers are undergoing (hagnizo,m 1:22) is one for which they themselves are responsible, not the Lord.^16.

Thus, given (1) the generic character of persecution being depicted in the epistle, (2) the social context that was normative for Christians throughout the Roman Empire, (3) the distinction throughout the empire between religiones licitae and religiones illicitae, and (4) the relative restraint of the writer when describing the governing authorities (esp. when compared to the book of Revelation), imperial persecution may be less of a factor in interpreting 1 Peter than some commentators are willing to grant.^17. It is reasonable to maintain that persecution of Christians could have occurred during the reign of any emperor from the middle of the first century onward. Furthermore, local outbreaks of persecution throughout the empire would vary greatly. Finally, against the supposition that 1 Peter reflects the period of Domitian or Trajan, it should be kept in mind that Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25.2–5) writes that Peter is succeeded as bishop of the church in Rome in the year 66.

Though secondary to the issues of authorship and persecution, a further hint informing the question of dating issues out of the writer’s approach to church organization. Significantly, there is no allusion in 1 Peter to the offices of bishop (episkopos, GK 2176) or deacon (diakonos, GK 1356) that one might expect at the turn of the century or in the early second century; there is only mention of elders (5:1).^18.

On the basis of both internal and external evidence, then, the most likely scenario is that 1 Peter was written from Rome, with persecution imminent or building, in the mid-sixties, though Eusebius places Peter’s death later.^19.

2. READERSHIP

The recipients of the letter are addressed as “God’s elect strangers” who are scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,Asia, and Bithynia (1:1), which together constitute the northern region of Asia Minor.^20. Whether these are new believers is difficult to ascertain, although the contrast of “before” and “after” is prominent throughout the epistle (1:14–15, 18, 22; 4:1–5), indicating a predominately Gentile (though racially mixed) population. Given the governing metaphor of Diaspora or “sojourning,” ²¹ the social location of the readers is Gentile and pagan, even when a sizable number of Jews inhabited parts of Asia Minor and Galatia in particular (cf.Ac 16:1–5).The greeting is consonant with ...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• CONTENTS
• CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME THIRTEEN
• PREFACE
• ABBREVIATIONS
• HEBREWS
• INTRODUCTION
• JAMES
• 1 PETER
• 2 PETER
• 1 JOHN
• 2 JOHN
• 3 JOHN
• JUDE
• REVELATION
• ABOUT THE PUBLISHER
• SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS