1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude

Daryl Charles, Tom Thatcher, Tremper Longman III, David E. Garland

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9780310532095
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

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 anthrōpoi agrammatoi kai idiōtai [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 dikaiosynē paschō [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 pathēmata [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 (hagnizō, 1:22) is one for which they themse...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• 1 Peter
• Introduction
• I. LETTER OPENING (1:1–2)
• II. LETTER BODY (1:3–5:11)
• III. LETTER CLOSING (5:12–14)
• 2 Peter
• Introduction
• I. THE WRITER AND HIS AUDIENCE (1:1–2)
• II. PURPOSE FOR WRITING AND AUTHORITY (1:3–21)
• III. PROFILE OF APOSTASY (2:1–22)
• IV. EXHORTATION TO THE FAITHFUL (3:1–18)
• 1 John
• Introduction
• I. PROLOGUE: SETTING THE BOUNDARIES (1:1–4)
• II. TESTS TO DISTINGUISH TRUE DISCIPLES FROM THE WORLD (1:5–2:17)
• III. TESTS TO DISTINGUISH TRUE DISCIPLES FROM ANTICHRISTS (2:18–5:21)
• 2 John
• Introduction
• I. GREETING (1–3)
• II. PROTECTING THE TRUTH (4–11)
• III. FAREWELL (12–13)
• 3 John
• Introduction
• I. GREETING (1–4)
• II. COMMENDATION OF GAIUS (5–8)
• III. A BAD EXAMPLE: DIOTREPHES (9–10)
• IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR DEMETRIUS (11–12)
• V. FAREWELL (13–14)
• Jude
• Introduction
• I. THE AUTHOR, HIS AUDIENCE, HIS PURPOSE FOR WRITING (1–4)
• II. PROFILE OF THE APOSTATE (5–19)
• III. PROFILE OF THE FAITHFUL (20–23)
• IV. TRIBUTE TO THE ONE WHO “KEEPS” (24–25)