Introduction

The Old Testament did not come to expression in a vacuum. Though such is often the unconscious belief of many, nothing could be farther from the truth. Even the points in the OT which appear to come closest to the idea of mechanical dictation (e.g., the Decalogue) were given in the light of certain historical events (e.g., the Exodus of Israel) and penned by the hand of a man. Israel was in constant contact, in both positive and negative ways, with her neighbors.¹ This being the case, it behooves us to utilize all ancient resources available to us in order to uncover the thought-world and religious milieu in which men penned the very words of God. While there is always the danger of leaving the text in history, this should not detract us from seriously engaging the historical data we have, lest we fall off the other side of the hermeneutical horse and modernize the text to our own peril.

The following paper attempts in a cursory way to present the Ugaritic pantheon and its relationship to a few passages from the Old Testament. The paper is divided up into three main sections: 1) the sources for understanding the Canaanite pantheon, with emphasis on the Ras Shamra materials; 2) the gods of the Canaanite pantheon, with special emphasis on Baal; 3) the nature and works of Baal and the Baal cycle, and 4) the relationship of the Ras Shamra texts to four OT references as a brief way of demonstrating the use of Ugaritic material for OT study.

Sources for
Understanding the Canaanite Pantheon

There are several sources for understanding Canaanite life and religion, and in particular the Canaanite pantheon, of which Baal is certainly among the preeminent gods. These sources include the Old Testament, several Greek writers, and the discoveries at Ras Shamra.² The purpose of this section is to briefly discuss these sources, giving special attention to the Ras Shamra materials, as the primary source for the development of our understanding of Baalism.

The Old Testament Scriptures

There are approximately 89 references to the god Baal in the Old Testament (OT). Further, the OT makes reference to other Canaanite deities including the goddess Asherah (40 times) as well as the goddess Ashtoreth (10 times).³ In total, there appears to be about 139 clear references to major Canaanite deities in the OT.⁴ In a brief survey of the passages in which reference is made to Baal worship, such things are noted as the high places at which Baal worship occurred within Israel (e.g., Num 22:41)⁵, Israel's propensity for engaging in Baal worship at certain points in her history (cf. Judges 2:11; 3:7; 8:33; 10:6, 10, Hosea 2:13, etc.), as well as the cultic practices of certain Baal prophets (cf. 1 Kings 18:25-29).

While the information contained in the OT is helpful in attempting to understand Canaanite religious practices, especially as it concerns Baalism, it is nonetheless, according to many scholars, limited in at least two ways. First, most of the references to Baalism do not attempt to explicate a complete picture of the beliefs or the cult, but only mention it in passing. Second, and in connection with the first limitation, the OT writers maintain a polemical stance towards Baalism and therefore present an extremely pejorative viewpoint. Helmer Ringgren argues:

For a long time our primary source for Canaanite religion was simply the presentation of it in the Old Testament. This, as is well known, is of a polemical nature, and can therefore not be expected to give an objectively correct picture of the religion. Furthermore, it is not an ordered presentation but one consisting of individual remarks made in passing.⁶

While it is true that the OT writers were severely critical of Baal worship, it does not follow that they were not objective in terms of their denunciations—denunciations given in the light of Israel's revealed religion and Canaanite cultic worship. The fact that so much of what the OT says regarding Baalism corroborates descriptions found in the Ras Shamra texts is proof enough that when the OT writers denounced Baalism for certain practices, they were indeed accurate and justified. Having said this, however, it is clear that the OT is not giving a complete, "blow by blow" description of the religious practices of the Canaanites. In the end, then, it is fair to say that the OT is accurate in what it affirms on this subject, but limited in what it says.⁷

Classical Greek Writers

Perhaps the most important Greek writer is Lucian of Samosata in Syria (died ca. AD 180). His work, On the Syrian Goddess, although late and influenced by Hellenistic ideas, nonetheless remains a valuable source for relaying information regarding the temple and cult of Astarte in the Syrian city of Hierapolis.⁸

The work of Philo of Byblos (ca. 100 BC) on Phoenician religion, preserved now only in excerpts, some of which are found in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, is based on what Sanchuniaton (a Phoenician priest) had told him.⁹ Sanchuniaton, for his part, apparently received his information from Hierombalus, who wrote around 1200 B.C.¹⁰ According to Eusebius' positive testimony concerning the worth of Philo's historical data, and the fact that earlier data from Ugarit tend to confirm Philo's work, it is generally taken as fairly reliable, and as such, provides yet another source for understanding Canaanite religion.¹¹

Archaeological Data

There have been tremendous archaeological finds in the regions of Syria and Palestine, Egypt and Ethiopia, Asia Minor, Arabia, Cyprus and the Aegean since the early part of this century. In terms of religious sites, there has been the identification of places of worship, temples, smaller shrines, and open-air sanctuaries. This includes temples discovered at Ugarit (temples for Baal worship as well as temples for Dagan, Taint, Qatna and Byblus in Syria), Beth-shan, Ai, Lachish and Megiddo in Palestine. Also, open-air structures at Megiddo and Tell en Nasbeh have been excavated. There have also been religious altars found at Zorah and Megiddo. Further, cult objects have been found including libation bowls, pottery incense stands, steles representing deities, as well as other artifacts relating to pagan worship.¹² The interpretation of this material, however, is very difficult and in contrast to the unbridled enthusiasm and speculation which characterized the initial period of excavations, later archaeologists have been much more cautious in their method and in the explication of their views.¹³ The real value of this evidence is realized, however, when written records accompany the unwritten sources.¹⁴

Ras Shamra Materials

Until early in this century our knowledge of Canaanite religion was scant to say the least. Relying heavily upon the sources listed above, we possessed no clear firsthand knowledge of these people and their customs.¹⁵ But, all that was to change substantially in 1929 with the discovery of the Ras Shamra texts. The entire story of their discovery—involving a peasant farmer who accidentally plowed up a flagstone covering an entrance to a burial chamber—as well as the history of their excavation, has been well documented.¹⁶

The Languages Represented and Date of the Ras Shamra Texts

From 1929 to the present day literally thousands of texts have been found at Ugarit.¹⁷ One of the most significant finds included a room with many clay tablets written in cuneiform characters. Several languages were represented, including Akkadian, Sumerian, Hurrian, Egyptian, Hieroglyphic Hittite, Cuneiform Hittite, as well as others. There was also one unknown alphabetical cuneiform language which was later deciphered and became known as Ugaritic. Much was written in this language including texts relating the customs of ancient Syria and Canaanite religion (e.g., Baal worship). Ugaritic has also proven helpful in vocabulary studies relating to the OT.¹⁸ According to Cyrus Gordon, the texts date from the late bronze age, approximately the early fourteenth century B. C.¹⁹ Johannes De Moor dates the texts a little more broadly from 1400-1200 BCE.²⁰ This being the case, however, it would appear that the traditions recorded therein antedate the texts by perhaps two or three hundred years.²¹ At the time of the initial production of the texts, Ugarit was a flourishing city carrying on business at an international level, and these texts, as one piece of the grand puzzle of Ugarit, tend to confirm, with other artifactual evidence, that such was indeed the case.

The Literary Nature of the Texts

The literary nature of the texts excavated at Ugarit (i.e., Ras Shamra) vary greatly. In general they are either poetry or prose, but they deal with a wide variety of subjects including legal matters, personal issues, religious issues (e.g., myths, epics, and prayers) and so on. The tablets that deal strictly with the Baal cycle appear to be about 6 in number though not all portions of the texts (i.e., clay tablets) remain. The story of Aqhat is recorded on 3 tablets and the story of Kirta is preserved on three tablets as well. There are also three tablets that preserve what is probably a sequel to Aqhat, namely, the record of The Healers. Thus there are about 15 tablets which deal with Ugaritic religious deities and all of them were found in the library of the chief priest of Baal in the city's main temple complex. They are also the work of the same scribe—a certain individual named Ilimilku.²² It is from these texts that the following information concerning the Canaanite pantheon and the Baal cult is ultimately derived.

The 'Gods' of the Canaanite Pantheon and the Names of Baal

The Gods of the Canaanite Pantheon

The Canaanite pantheon included a vast array of deities many of which remain enigmatic to us and the information about which is reduced simply to a name.²³ The following discussion will concern itself with the principal Canaanite deities about which we have some positive knowledge. These include: 1) El; 2) Ashtoreth; 3) Anat; 4) Illib; 5) Yamm; 6) Mot; 7) Resheph; 8) Sapas (Shemesh); 9) Baal.

El

There is no little discussion in the literature regarding the position and role of El among the Canaanite gods, and in particular his relationship to Baal. Before considering this, however, we must first say a word about El as the creator and father of the gods. There is no "creation account" per se in the Ugaritic texts published to date, but there are epithets in both the Ras Shamra texts and other Canaanite materials that indicate that El was viewed as the creator. He is called bniyu binwti "creator of the created things" in CTA 4.II.11; 4.III.32; 6.III.5, 11; 17.I.25.²⁴ This may include the world, but some argue that the evidence is inconclusive on this.²⁵ But, in a Canaanite myth from Boghazky there is the mention of El as the creator of "the heaven and the earth"—a title given to none other in the pantheon.²⁶ Further, the gods are referred to as his "family" or "sons" and he often bears the epithet "bull" as a symbol of his virility.²⁷ He appears first in the god-lists, which probably indicates his supremacy, but it is has been argued that this might refer instead to the order of the parade of his symbols in cultic procession.²⁸ El is also regarded for the most part as the king over the gods and people and indeed earthly kings were often seen to have some connection with the god, ruling as a visible representation of his rule. In order for the gods to see him they had to travel to the place referred to as the "source of the two rivers, the fountain of the two deeps." He usually appeared to the gods in visits and men in visions.²⁹ Unfortunately, his character is generally spoken of as deplorable; in fact, it has been argued that El's seduction of two unnamed women is one of the most sensuous in all of Ancient Near Eastern literature.³⁰

Athirat/Ilat/Asherah³¹

Athirat, or as she is referred to sometimes, Ilat (i.e., goddess of the god El), is the most prominent goddess in the Ugaritic pantheon, though her origin appears to go back well before Ugarit (1200-1400 B.C.E.) to the time of the Ebla tablets. In the Ugaritic pantheon she is the consort of El. She is referred to as the "mother of the gods" or "procreatress of the gods." She thus shares in El's creative work. She is also referred to as "Lady Athirat of the sea" and by the Semitic word qd (i.e., holy). She figures prominently in the Ugaritic texts in which Baal and Anat are requesting from El a palace for Baal to live in (CTA 4), texts concerning Shahar and Shalim (CTA 23) and in another wherein she is said to receive a sheep offered in sacrifice.³²

The name Asherah is the designation often given this goddess in the Old Testament. The Asherim of the OT refer to the female cult objects which were used in conjunction with male cult objects in the worship of Baal. The only discrepancy between the OT and the Ras Shamra texts is that in the latter she appears to be the consort of El, but in the former she seems to be placed in association with Baal. But, as Day points out, there is a second millennium Hittite myth which describes her as "going after" Baal. The OT may just be representing the eventual outcome of that pursuit, i.e., Athirat "caught up with her man."³³

Baal

Baal is of course one of the principal deities in the Canaanite pantheon and was regarded as the storm and fertility god. Because the paper is primarily concerned with him, we will simply mention him here and make extended comments regarding his names in the next subsection and will take up the issue of the Baal cycle and in his role in selected OT texts under "Baal's Character and His Works" and "Baalism and Selected OT Texts" below.

Anat

Anat is the sister and probably the consort of the god Baal. She was known as the goddess of love (i.e., sensuality)³⁴ and war.³⁵ It was through her prowess that Mot was defeated and Baal raised to life again. She is regarded in the texts as beautiful—a fact corroborated by her epithet, "maiden"—but her disposition is quarrelsome and driven. Coogan summarizes her character well:

The only goddess with a vivid character is Anat. She is Baal's wife and sister, and is closely identified with him as a source of fertility and a successful opponent of the forces of chaos; like Baal she lives on a mountain. Her fierce temper is directed against the gods and mortals alike, and with her thirst for violence and her macabre trappings—a necklace of human heads, a belt of human hands—Anat has been compared to the Hindu goddess Kali.³⁶

Dagan

The Mari texts speak of the god Dagan whose name probably means "grain," though this is not certain. Apparently there was a temple at Ugarit dedicated to Dagan as two stone tablets found just outside the temple appear to indicate. Dagan does not play a primary role in the Ugaritic texts though he is thought to be related to fertility and worshipped in the Euphrates valley from earliest times.³⁷

Yamm

The meaning of the epithet "Yamm" is sea. He is regarded in the Baal myth as one of Baal's major adversaries. He is referred to several times in the OT (explicitly or implicitly) where it is claimed that the Lord has dominion over him (e.g., Ex. 15:4-10 [Moses' song]; Job 9:8; Ezek 28:1-8). He is accompanied in the texts by two sea monsters, namely, Litar (Leviathan) and Tunnan (Tannin in the Bible) and he himself rules the sea.

Mot

The name "Mot" means "death" and as such he is the god of the underworld. In the Baal cycle he is the one who "kills" Baal and refuses to let him go despite the requests of Anat.³⁸

Resheph

The god Resheph (Heb. "pestilence") is responsible for the demise of Kirta's family and he is seen in many Ugaritic cultic texts as one who receives several offerings. Earlier in the late 3^rd millennium B. C. E. he was worshipped as a patron god of the kings of Ebla. He was also one of the most popular gods in the worship of the Egyptians of the nineteenth dynasty.³⁹ Some scholars closely link Resheph with the god Mot.⁴⁰

Kothar

The god Kothar (i.e., skilled one) was very popular at Ugarit and was regarded as a divine craftsman.⁴¹ Several texts indicate that he was a magician, master builder, seaman, and a maker of weapons (including the composite bow). It is he who makes the palace for Baal after Baal's "resurrection" from the dead (KTU 1.4: v. 50ff). He is often identified with the Babylonian god Ea, who himself was a god of wisdom, both practical and theoretical.⁴²

Names and Titles for Baal and Baal Place Names

The following discussion concerns the various names and titles of Baal, as well as places named after him. The names and titles come primarily from the Ugaritic material and the place names come from the OT. The purpose of this section is not to be exhaustive, per se, but simply to give some of the most important and representative facts under this topic.

Names and Titles of Baal

Baal. Both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Ras Shamra texts the term "baal" is used in a generic sense, meaning "lord," as well as in the sense of a proper name.⁴³ It was in the latter sense that the term became a fixed designation for the god Hadad (i.e., the storm god) some time perhaps as early as the Hyksos period—the seventeenth or sixteenth centuries.⁴⁴

Son of Dagan. Several times in the Ras Shamra texts, El is referred to as the father of the gods, yet in at least a dozen places, Dagan⁴⁵ is said to be the father of Baal. As Conrad L'Heureux says: "The most problematic datum is that while El is presumed to be the father of the gods, Baal regularly bears the epithet bn dgn, "son of Dagan."⁴⁶ This may point to the intrusive nature of the god Baal indicating that he was involved in a process of assimilation into an older Canaanite pantheon, but the "seams" are still evident. The fact that Baal is said to be in need of a temple is further evidence that the assimilation was not complete. Therefore, since Baal is said only to be the son of Dagan (and indeed carries some of his characteristics), and appears to be a later addition to the Canaanite pantheon, we should not regard him as related to El as a son. Kapelrud is quite adamant about this: "whenever the designation bn. dgn is used in the texts, there can be no doubt that Baal was really considered the son of Dagan, and not the son of Il, the chief deity of the Ugaritic pantheon."⁴⁷

Hadad. Hadad was a war-like god⁴⁸ whose cult covered most of the Near East (e.g., middle Euphrates, Babylonia, Assyria) at the time of the Ras Shamra texts.⁴⁹ He is also found in the Amarna letters and those from Mari as well. The designation hd is most often found in the Ugaritic texts and it is usually in association (i.e., in parallel) with Baal. Therefore, Hadad and Baal were two distinct gods who were merged into one in Canaanite theology, well before the writing of the Ras Shamra texts. After the synthesis of the two gods, it appears that Baal (no longer simply an appellation, but a proper name) had become a dying and rising fertility god, as well as a storm god who functioned as an able warrior.⁵⁰

Aliyn Baal. This is the second most common designation for Baal (approx. 65x). The term Aliyn appears to denote the idea of power and strength. Oldenburg, based on an etymology relating Aliyn to the Ugartic root l’n translated the compound name as "Most Mighty Baal."⁵¹ Driver gives a similar translation: "the victor Baal."⁵² Worth mentioning is the fact that when the Ras Shamra texts were originally found, many scholars held that Baal and Aliyu Baal were two distinct gods. But, as Kapelrud points out, such a thesis cannot be maintained as both terms are used repeatedly interchangeably. Thus they refer to one and the same god who possesses the same attributes and carries out the same functions.⁵³ In summary, then, the name Aliyu Baal designates Baal as a victorious warrior (as seen in his defeat of Yamm) and it is perhaps for this reason that the Israelites found him attractive.⁵⁴

Lord and God of Sapan. Sapan has generally been identified as mount Sapan (Saphon) north of the Ugarit about 30 miles and rising into the air about 5800 feet. It was regarded by the Canaanites as the dwelling place of Baal. Ringgren explains:

Baal's dwelling place is the mount Sapan, north of Ugarit, the Kasios of the Greeks. This mountain was clearly to the Canaanites what Olympus was to the Greeks; it was not only the dwelling place of Baal but the site of the assembly of the gods . . .In a recently published text a description is given of how Baal, who is called Hadd, sits enthroned upon his mountain here called Sapan and 'the mount of victory'.⁵⁵

It is on this mountain, which could be seen from Ugarit and which was often under cloud cover, that Baal lived, reigned, and was buried by Anat after his death. Since Baal was considered the rain god it was "only natural that this mountain was considered the living place [for him] and that a cult place in honour of him may have been found there."⁵⁶

Rider of the Clouds. Baal is also referred to about 12 times as "the Rider of the Clouds" which undoubtedly testifies to his control over the rain and storms. Psalm 68 may have been written, in part, as a polemic against Baal worship wherein it is indicated in verse 4 that YHWH is the one who rides the clouds.⁵⁷

Bull Baal. The title Bull Baal connotes Baal's sexual potency and primacy in the pantheon as the fertility god. Baal is seen on the Baal au foudre stele with club and lance, lightning, and horns—the last of which represent his fertility and power as Bull Baal.⁵⁸

Certain Baal Place Names

Baal was worshipped, according to the OT, in numerous areas and communities after which he was often named. This does not mean that Baal was simply a local god, or that the widespread belief in Baal was of a monolithic nature, but that he was venerated far and wide, among many people.⁵⁹

There are several place names for the worship of Baal. The following is a sample list: 1) Baal-berith ("covenant Baal) was worshipped at Shechem after the death of Gideon (Judges 8:33; 9:4); 2) Baal-gad ("Baal of good fortune") might refer to a town after his (i.e., Baal's) name in the Lebanon valley (cf. Jos. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5; Is 65:11); 3) Baal-hamon ("lord of abundance or wealth") is mentioned in connection with a fruitful vineyard belonging to Solomon (Song of Songs 8:11); 4) Baal-hermon ("Baal of Hermon") might be another name for Baal-gad, perhaps located in the north of Israel near Mt. Hermon; 5) Baal-peor ("Baal of Peor") was the god of the mountains of Moab who took his name from Peor. Israel involved herself in the Moabite cult and 24,000 were killed by God (Num 25:1-9; Dt 4:3); 6) Baal-Zebub ("Lord of the fly god") was the god of the Philistines who, some contend, either drove flies away or gave oracles by the buzzing of a fly.

Baal's Character and His Works: The Interpretation of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle

Global Interpretations of the Baal Cycle

There are differing interpretations of the overall meaning of the cycle; does it relate to the seasons of the year or to certain political realities affecting the people of Ugarit? There is a general consensus on the fact that the myth focuses on the kingship of Baal, but in terms of life realities reflected in the epic, there is much disagreement. Arvid Kapelrud and Johannes C. de Moor are typical of those who argue for an interpretation of the myth as it relates to the seasons of the year.⁶⁰ De Moor says that the myth "described the mythological prototype of the normal agricultural and cultic year of the people of Ugarit."⁶¹ Mark Smith, on the other hand, emphasizes the political nature of the myth. He says:

It is well-known that political language dominates the Baal Cycle, but it should be recognized that the Baal Cycle presents the universe as a single political reality connecting different levels. This political reality of Baal's rule integrates three levels, cosmic, human and natural. First, the Baal Cycle concentrates on the interaction of the deities in the larger cosmos . . . Second, the political events in the Baal Cycle reflect a concern for human society . . . Third, the Baal Cycle uses natural phenomena, especially lightning, thunder and rains to underscore the political power of Baal, the Storm-god.

Having read the Baal Cycle, it would appear to me that while there is some evidence for Smith's thesis (KTU 1.3: I.iii), the bulk of the material should be interpreted as de Moor and others have suggested. In the end Smith's thesis is somewhat reductionistic and unable to adequately account for certain data, including the death of Baal, and his association with so many aspects of nature. His certain death each year is better linked to the ending of the rains and the drying up of the ground (i.e., lack of fertility) due to the scorching sun. There is no doubt that the Ugaritic worshippers related their lives to the struggles of Baal (e.g., in political distress) as is common among worshippers and
their deities, but the overall reading of the cycle as political seems more applicational than interpretational.

A Brief Overview of the Cycle

The entire Baal Cycle is written on 6 tablets preserved well enough to understand the general flow of the material but with several lacunae ranging from 10 to 40 lines or more.⁶² The first two tablets describe the battle of Baal with the Sea god, Yamm. The next two tablets explain how, after much effort, Baal and Anat get underway with the building plans for Baal's palace. The final two tablets outline Baal's struggle with Mot and possibly Ashtar.

The Battle of Baal with Yamm(u)

According to de Moor the animosity between Yamm and Baal "represents the mythological prototype of the short Syrian winter with its gales, rain, hail and occasional tides."⁶³ In the myth itself it appears that the battle between the two emerged from the fact that Baal (the head and father of the gods) contests Yamm's right to take over control of Ilu's property even though Ilu gave him the right to do it. In fact Ilu commands Yammu to take control of the kingship and the wealth.⁶⁴

So he [Ilu] proclaimed the name of Yammu.
[Lady Athiratu] answered:
"For our maintenance [you are the one who has been proclaimed],
you are the one who has been proclaimed 'master'!"
[And the Bull Ilu answered:]
"I myself, the Benevolent, Ilu the good-natured,
[have taken you] in my hands,
I have proclaimed [your name].
[Yammu is your name],
your name is beloved of I[lu Yammu]
[And I shall give you] a house of my own silver,
[a palace] of [gold]
[You may take it] from the hand of Ba Jlu the Almighty,
[from the hand of the son of Daganu],
because he has reviled us [ ],
[ ].
Chase him away from the chair of his kingship,
from the seat of the throne of his dominion.⁶⁵

From the preceding citation it is obvious that neither Ilu (i.e., El) nor Yammu (i.e., Yamm) care a great deal for Baal.⁶⁶ Ilu, for whatever reason, has put Yammu, his beloved son, up to the deed of taking the kingship from Baal and indeed to inherit all of Ilu's gold. Yammu sends messengers to convey the news to Baal, who does not give in to Yammu's edict of subjection. Instead, with the help of Kothar, and a club (and some magical incantations) made by him, Baal finally—after a failed first attempt—vanquishes Yamm (KTU 1.3: III.).

The Construction of Baal's Palace

After the defeat of Yamm, while Baal was living in the palace of El, he sought Asherah and El in order that he might have a palace of his own. With the help of Kothar, Baal makes some furniture for Asherah in order to garner her support and motivate her to intercede on his behalf before El. Baal even enlists the support of Anat and, although he was somewhat hesitant at first, El nonetheless ends up consenting to Baal's wishes. With a new temple in place the suggestion in the texts is that the rains will come when expected (see KTU 1.4; IV.v). There is also the possibility that the myth represents the actual building of the temple in Ugarit and its dedication every year, but there does not appear to be any hard data to confirm such an interpretation.⁶⁷ Also, Oldenburg states that after the defeat of Yamm and the building of a temple, Baal has now "achieved unlimited rule in the sky."⁶⁸ This is generally correct, but it must be remembered that El is still in a position of power (however docile he seems to be at times) and Mot is still able to put Baal to death for a period.⁶⁹

Baal's Struggles with Mot

Baal recognizes that Mot is a formidable enemy.⁷⁰ It is unclear in the texts how, but Baal is either summoned or challenged to meet Mot in the nether world. Surprisingly Baal goes and submits to Mot's power. Thus Baal, as the rain and storm god, must give in to the other gods when his time each year is complete.⁷¹ He is not in control of nature, but is indeed subject to its laws. With the death of Baal, the dry season comes.

Thus Baal died as it were, and Anat went hunting for his body and found it. She then buried him properly to ensure his peace in the nether world and it was this burial, of course, that was enacted in the cult in order that Baal might resurrect each year and bring fertility to the earth. In the meantime, to ensure some measure of fertility during his absence, Baal copulated with a heifer. Ringgren also argues, probably correctly, that Baal's intercourse with the heifer, which itself produced a son, was to guarantee "a descendant in case Baal's expedition to the underworld should go wrong"; it was not only to guarantee some fertility in his absence.⁷² Some time later Anat kills Mot and Baal is free to rise from the nether world and commence his activity in the world. His first goal is to put to death the sons of Asherah who rejoiced when he was taken to the nether world by Mot. In the end it appears that Mot is never able to completely vanquish Baal, in part, due to the influence of the father of the gods, El.

The Canaanite Pantheon and the Old Testament

A Methodological Comment

Since the discovery of the Ugaritic materials at Ras Shamra, there has been a great deal of comparative work done in order to explicate the relationship between the Canaanite pantheon and cult, and Israelite faith and practice. These comparisons are necessary and have in many cases been fruitful for illuminating texts (also customs, etc.) of the Old Testament heretofore not as clearly understood. As in all comparative work, however, there are dangers that need to be addressed on a case by case basis.⁷³ Some of the basic problems involved with this process include: 1) the Ugaritic culture expressed in the Ras Shamra texts may not be a complete and accurate a picture of the Canaanites who lived further to the south, and to the degree that this is true, these sources cannot necessarily be used to recreate Biblical situations where Israel is involved in some way with the Canaanites; 2) there is also the chronological problem, namely, that the Ugaritic culture flourished and died out before the Israelites came to prominence in the land of Palestine; 3) the fact that there is some distance between Ugarit and the southern regions of Palestine where Israel was situated could result in distinctions in culture, language and general ways of thinking and doing; 4) the Ugaritic texts as shown above are often times quite fragmentary and conclusions often rest on a restoration of the text in question. Taken together these four considerations should produce caution among specialists making comparisons in this field.⁷⁴

The Myth/Cult of Ugarit and Parallels in the Old Testament Texts

There are numerous texts in the OT for which we now possess further illumination as a result of the discoveries at Ras Shamra. While the focus of this paper is not on the OT per se, but on Baalism and the Ugaritic texts, I will nonetheless comment on a handful of passages from the OT to show the relationship this background material has to the OT. The following is a brief synopsis of 4 passages from the OT and their relationship to Baalism and Canaanite worship.

Exodus 15 and the Song of Moses

Central to the Baal cycle is Baal's conflict, the order he brings, his kingship, and his palace. These same themes can be seen to be running through Yahweh's defeat of the Egyptian army as expressed poetically by Moses in Exodus 15:1-18. Instead of Yahweh competing with the Sea (Yamm) as Baal does, he is competing against the Egyptian armies. In this case he resolves the conflict—that is, creates order from chaos—with a resounding victory over his enemy by using the Sea as the instrument of his judgment. But just as in the Baal epic, there is another enemy for Baal, namely Mot, so it is with Yahweh. After the defeat of the Egyptians he too will face future enemies (12-14), but instead of defeat like Mot, he will surely gain the victory. After complete victory has been accomplished, Yahweh will establish his inheritance on a mountain⁷⁵ and there will be a sanctuary for him (v. 17; cf. Baal's dwelling place on Mt. Sapan and the palace he so desired).⁷⁶ From these similarities it appears that Moses has the structure of the Baal myth or a very similar tradition in mind as he writes.

Numbers 25:3

In Numbers 25:1-3 Moses records for posterity a grievous sin of Israel against Yahweh. Apparently there was a site for Baal (of Peor) worship at Shittim and when Israel was there her men began to engage themselves in sexual immorality with Canaanite women, and along with that (probably as a part of the worshipping cult), bowed the knee to Baal. This description of the sexual immorality of the Baal worshipping women is consistent with what we know from Ugarit about the nature of the pantheon, as outlined above. While our evidence from artifacts and the Ras Shamra texts is not explicit about immorality in the cult, it is certainly overt in the mythical texts.⁷⁷ It would appear, then, that the Canaanite worshippers sunk to the moral levels of the deities they worshipped. Is not the testimony of history that one becomes what one worships? One need only think for a moment of later Greco-Roman religion and the activities of the mystery religions.⁷⁸ The information in the Ugaritic materials, then, corroborates well the remarks of Scripture.⁷⁹

1 Kings 18

There is perhaps no clearer encounter between Baalism and Yahwism in the OT than that recorded in 1 Kings 18:16-42. Ahab accuses Elijah of making trouble for Israel, after which Elijah himself responds by saying that it is Ahab who has brought trouble upon Israel (i.e., a drought; 1 Kings 17:1)⁸⁰ by worshipping the Baals—a thing forbidden by the Lord (1 Kings 16:17-18). Elijah decides to settle the issue of which God is to be worshipped in Israel once and for all, by challenging the prophets of Baal to a contest.⁸¹ While there is some debate as to the precise identity of the Baal worshipped at Mount Carmel (e.g., Carmel, Balbek, Baal Shemem, etc.), we may say with G. H. Jones that:

Whether Baal Carmel was identified with Melqart or with Baal Shamem is immaterial, for it seems that all Phoenician and Palestinian gods were in the last analysis weather and sky gods. What is important is that in the eyes of the Israelites a deity who had control over the natural order exercised the same function as the Canaanite Hadad and so presented a challenge to Yahweh's sovereignty in the land.⁸²

The point to be made here is that the Ugaritic materials corroborate the biblical testimony concerning Baal as a rain, lightning and storm god. The very god who was supposed to bring lightning (cf. the Baal au foudre stele) was now unable to; instead Yahweh brings the "fire from heaven" demonstrating that He is really sovereign over nature—with the concomitant conclusion that He is also sovereign over Baal. Baal might have been able to handle Yammu, Mot and even El, but He is no match for Yahweh.

The Ugaritic texts have also cleared up a problem with the use of "the prophets of Asherah" in this pericope (18:19). At one time, according to Rowley, scholars felt that the expression was an intrusion into the text "since they are not mentioned in the sequel and Asherah is elsewhere used in the Bible of a religious symbol, rather than a deity."⁸³ But Rowley argues that the situation no longer obtains because:

it is now securely known from the Ras Shamra texts that there was a goddess Athirat [which denotes Asherah in Hebrew; see discussion above], and it may be noted that Josephus tells us that Ittobaal was the priest of Astarte [also Asherah], who must therefore have been a consort of Melkart.⁸⁴

Psalm 29

Psalm 29 is a hymn which can be broken down into three basic parts; 1) the call to praise (1-2); 2) the reason for the praise (3-9); a conclusion to the praise with a focus on God's kingship and protection.⁸⁵ Due to the fact, in verses 3-9, that the voice of the Lord is associated with thunder (v.3b), water (v. 3a,c), and lightning (v. 7) some have regarded the psalm as originally a Canaanite or Phoenician hymn to Baal, later adapted by the Israelites for use in the Yahweh cult.⁸⁶ While recognizing the obvious Canaanite parallels in the psalm (e.g., vocabulary and structure) Craigie, for his part, is not ready to admit of such a history for the psalm. Instead he argues that the psalm is a "psalm of victory" with its antecedents in the Song of the Sea (Moses) in Exodus 15 (cf. also the Song of Deborah in Judges 5:4-5, 19-21). The psalm, then, since it contains all these allusions to Canaanite myth is really a polemic directed at Baal and the pantheon and represents a middle stage in the development in the Hebrew tradition of victory psalms.⁸⁷ In commenting on Psalm 29 Habel rightly says:

In the conflict between the faith of Israel and the Canaanite religious culture, the storm image was apparently employed to emphasize the truth that Yahweh's involvement in history and life was not obscure or hidden and rarely suaviter in modo, but was frequently spectacular or disruptive and always fortiter in re beyond anything that the limited kingship of Baal permitted. It served to Magnify the magnalia of Yahweh and highlight the sovereignty of His choice of Israel in its polemic against Baal worship.⁸⁸

In summary, at least three considerations emerge from a comparison of Psalm 29 with Ugaritic texts: 1) Ugaritic is helpful for Hebrew vocabulary; 2) it is quite possible to use the terms and expressions of an opponent and "fill" them with one's own meaning;⁸⁹ 3) caution must be exercised before hypotheses are developed around the relationships of these texts.

There are literally scores of other passages which could have been discussed here in order to further demonstrate the relationship of Ugaritic texts to the Old Testament.⁹⁰ In general Ugaritic materials from Ras Shamra have aided us in our understanding of the Canaanite people in the late bronze age, the vocabulary, grammar, structure and even music of the psalms,⁹¹ backgrounds to the OT⁹² as well as vocabulary, theology, and concepts in the Old Testament.

Conclusion

The Canaanite pantheon, as described in the Ugaritic sources, is composed of several gods, perhaps the most important being Baal himself as the storm and fertility god. While there are various interpretations of the Baal cycle, the seasonal approach as advanced by de Moor is that which probably best accounts for the data. These texts are extremely valuable for our understanding of the Canaanite culture, for hitherto we had no positive witness outside the OT, and a paucity of other sources, to these people.

The texts from Ugarit have also been of immense help in promoting our understanding of the OT, its vocabulary, thought structures and religious/historical backgrounds in general. The material must be handled with care in the process of making comparisons and certain limitations involving dating and geographical distance must be kept in mind.

Selected Bibliography

Books

Albright, W. F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1942.

________. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Reprint. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978.

Anderson, A. A. Psalms 1-72. In The New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Ronald E. Clements. 2 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Attridge, Harold W. and Robert A Oden, Jr. Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series. Edited by Bruce Vawter, et al. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Baumgarten, Albert I. The Phoenician History of Philo0 of Byblos: A Commentary. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.

Beyerlin, Walter, ed. Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Block, Daniel Isaac. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series. Edited by Allan Fisher and David B. Kennedy. Number 2. Jackson, MS: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988.

Coogan, Michael David, ed. Stories from Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by John D. W. Watts. Volume 19. Waco: Word Books, Publishers, 1983.

Craigie, Peter C. Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Curtis, Adrian. Ugarit (Ras Shamra). Cities of the Biblical World. Edited by Graham I. Davies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Day, John. God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Dearman, J. Andrew. Religion and Culture in Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.

De Moor, Johannes C. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Religious Texts Translation Series NISABA. Volume 16. Edited by M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss, et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.

Driver, G. R. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Old Testament Studies Series. Number III. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956.

Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugarit and Minoan Crete: The Bearing of Their Texts on Western Culture. The Norton Library. New York: W. W. Norton, 1966.

________. Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949.

Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament. 2^nd ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Habel, Norman C. Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures. New York: Bookman Associates, 1964.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Hendel, Ronald S. The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Number 42. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Kapelrud, Arvid S. Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen: C. E. G. Gad, 1952.

________. The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament. Translated by G. W. Anderson. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1963.

Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Number 39. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Livingstone, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. 2^nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

L'Heureux, Conrad E. Rank among the Canaanite Gods El, Ba Jal and the Repha'im. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Number 21. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979.

Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr. The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Number 24. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.

Oldenburg, Ulf. The Conflict between El and Ba Jal in Canaanite Religion. Supplementa ad Nvmen, Altera Series. Volumen Tertium. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1969.

Ostborn, G. Yahweh and Baal: Studies in the Book of Hosea and Related Documents. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup, 1956.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962.

Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Translated by John Sturdy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973.

Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Volume 55. Edited by J. A. Emerton, et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.

Sznycer, Maurice. "The Religions and Myths of the Western Semites—And Some Problems of Method." In Mythologies. 2 Vols. Translated by Wendy Doniger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. I: 182-89.

________. "Ugaritic Gods and Myths." In Mythologies. 2 Vols. Translated by Wendy Doniger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. I: 206-15.

West, James King. Introduction to the Old Testament. 2^nd Edition. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1981.

Essays

Anderson, James Edward. "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal in Israel." Unpublished Ph.D. Diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975.

Koch, Klaus. "Ba Jal Sapon, Ba Jal Samem and the Critique of Israel's Prophets." In Ugarit and the Bible. 159-174. Edited by George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis and John F. Healey. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Judges." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Edited by Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord. 2 Volumes. I: 373-414. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Numbers." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Edited by Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord. 2 Volumes. I: 215-58. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Miller, Rocky S. "Psalm 93: A Polemic against Baal of the Ras Shamra Texts." Th.M. Thesis. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975.

Owen, Jonathan Clark. "Psalm 104: Yahweh's Polemic against the Ugaritic Pantheon." Th.M. Thesis. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985.

Patterson, Richard D. and Hermann J. Austel. "1, 2 Kings." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Volume 4. 1-300. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Ross, Allen P. "Psalms." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Edited by Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord. 2 Volumes. I: 779-899. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Smith, Mark S. "Mythology and Myth-Making in Ugaritic and Israelite Literature." In Ugarit and the Bible. 293-341. Edited by George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis and John F. Healey. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994.

Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

White, Randall Fowler. "Victory and House Building in Revelation 20:1-21:8: A Thematic Study." Ph. D. Diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1987.

Articles

Bordreuil, Pierre and Dennis Pardee. "Le combat de Balu avec Yammu d'apres les textes ougaritiques." MARI 7 (1993):63-70.

Caquot, Andre. "Le dieu Athtar et les textes de Ras Shamra." Syria 35 (1958): 45-60.

Cazelles, Henri. "Phnicie (Religion de)." In Dictionaire des Religions. Edited by Paul Poupard. Paris: Press Universitaire de France, 1984.

Cooper, Alan M. "Canaanite Religion: An Overview." In The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.

Coogan, Michael David. "Canaanite Religion: The Literature." In The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.

Craigie, P. C. and G. H. Wilson. "Religions of the Biblical World: Canaanite (Syria and Palestine)." In The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Revised Edition. Volume 4. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Cunchillos, J. L. "Le Dieu Mut, Guerrier de El." Syria 62 (1985): 205-18.

Curtis, A. W. H. "The Subjugation of the Waters Motif in the Psalms; Imagery or Polemic?" JSS 23 (1978): 245-56.

Day, John. "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature." JBL (1986): 385-408.

________. "Echoes of Baal's Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI." Vetus Testamentum XXIX (1985): 143-51.

Eakin, Frank. "Yahwism and Baalism Before the Exile." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 407-14.

Gaster, T. H. "The Battle between the Rain and the Sea. An Ancient Semitic Nature-Myth." Iraq 4 (1937): 21-32.

Gibson, J. C. L. "The Theology of the Baal Cycle." Orientalia 53 (1984): 202-219.

Grabbe, L. L. "The Seasonal Pattern of the Baal Cycle." UF 8 (1976): 57-63.

Jung, K. G. "Baal." In The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Revised Edition. Volume 1. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Livingstone, G. Herbert. "The Relation of the Old Testament to Ancient Cultures." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein. 339-56. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Rowley, H. H. "Elijah on Mount Carmel," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 43 (1960): 190-219.

Unger, Merrill F. "Archaeology and the Religion of the Canaanites," BibSac 107 (1950): 168-74.

---

1 Arvid S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Texts and the Old Testament, trans. G. W. Anderson (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 78: "Over and over again the Old Testament shows that the Israelites did not only borrow from the Canaanite ways of worship but constantly relapsed into them."

2 Further sources on aspects of the Canaanite culture as a whole include the discoveries at Ebla (3^rd Millennium B.C. E.) Mari and Tel el Amarna. These findings, as important as they are, do not contribute as much to an understanding of Canaanite religion as do the texts from Ras Shamra at Ugarit. The Mari texts are principally Mesopotamian in substance and the Amarna texts—letters from Palestine—are not particularly religious but discuss political correspondence between several Levantine vassal rulers and Pharaohs Amenophis III and IV. For further discussion see P. C. Craigie and G. H. Wilson, "Religions of the Biblical World: Canaanite (Syria and Palestine)," in The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 4: 95-96.

3 Some argue that these apparently refer to the same female deity, known also in Canaanite literature as Athtart and in the Greek world as Astarte. See Charles F. Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible, Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), 12. Overall, this thesis seems unlikely.

4 Cf. BDB, 127-28. See also, James Edward Anderson, "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel" (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 6-7.

5 The reference here to lu^b* tomb* probably refers to the "high places of Baal." See Philip J. Budd, Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 5 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), 266.

6 Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, trans. John Sturdy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 125.

7 But cf. Alan M. Cooper, "Canaanite Religion: An Overview," in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: MacMillan Publishing Group, 1987), 35, who says: "It is generally agreed that the biblical witness to Canaanite religion is highly polemical and, therefore, unreliable." This statement as it stands is, of course, a non-sequitur. A polemical approach precludes neither honesty nor accuracy. The charge of "unreliable" must be demonstrated on other grounds.

8 Ringgren, Religions, 126.

9 See Ringgren, Religions, 126, who says: "The discoveries of the last decades have in general confirmed that his facts are reliable, but it must always be remembered that he has a very strong tendency to systematize his material, and that he gives his own euhemeristic interpretation of it in presenting the gods as men who because of their service to mankind have come to receive worship."

10 See Anderson, "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel," 22-23.

11 See William Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Garden City: NY: Doubleday & Company, 1968), 217-18. But see also Cooper, "Canaanite Religion: An Overview," 35, who says that "the comparability of the Phoenician History with authentic Canaanite data should not be overstressed. At best Philo's information probably sheds light on the religion of late hellenized Phoenicians, and offers no direct evidence for second millennium Canaanite religion." For earlier and more positive assessments of Philo's historical reliability, see Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, ed. Bruce Vawter (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 3-9; E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 12. Attridge, Oden and Mullen consider Philo's work to be very accurate.

12 For a discussion of the archaeological finds up to the 1940's and the development of critical methods in order to understand the materials properly, see William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1942), 36-67. For a further description of the finds up until the early 1960's see Arvid S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, trans. G. W. Anderson (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 3-16.

13 For a general discussion of the history of the interpretation of the texts up until the early 1960's see Kapelrud, Discoveries, 17-28. For his criticism of Ren Dussaud's method and conclusions, see pages 17-19.

14 See Ringgren, Religions, 126.

15 Arvid S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: C. E. G. Gad, 1952), 11. See also Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible, 7.

16 See Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible, 9-18; Michael David Coogan, ed. and trans., Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 10-11; G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Old Testament Series, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T & T Clarke, 1956), 1.

17 In a discussion with K. Lawson Younger, Jr., (Feb. 1997) he stated that there have been at least 500 more texts discovered at Ras Shamra since 1993-95. Apparently these were all in Ugaritic, date from 1400-1200 B. C. E., and represent a wide variety of genres including sacerdotal traditions. Unfortunately, very few have been published.

18 Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible, 15.

19 Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949), IX.

20 Johannes C. De Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, Religious Texts Translation Series, ed. M. S. H. G. Heerma Van Voss, et al, vol. 16 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), viii.

21 Coogan, Stories, 11. See also De Moor, Anthology, 99, f n 481 and the scribal habits of Illimilku and how they may be interpreted as inferring an oral tradition behind the texts.

22 See, for example, (KTU 1.4:IV.viii); (KTU 1.6: VI.vi)

23 There have been two "god lists" published from the Ugaritic materials. In all there seems to be about 33-34 gods. See Cooper, "Canaanite Religion: An Overview," 37; Albright, Gods of Canaan, 140-45. But, some argue that there were as many as 70 gods at Ugarit. See Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible, 29.

24 CTA=Corpus des tablette en cuniformes alphabtiques, ed. A. Herdner. See also Mullen, The Divine Council, 13-14.

25 Cooper, "Canaanite Religion: An Overview," 37.

26 Mullen, The Divine Council, 15.

27 Some have raised three or four arguments against the sexual potency of El. Perhaps the most important includes the claim in a Canaanite myth, preserved only in Hittite, that El was impotent. Conrad E. L'Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba Jal and the Repha'im, Harvard Semitic Monographs, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 8, says that this is untenable and misconstrued out of context.

28 Cooper, "Canaanite Religion: An Overview," 37. Given his overall pre-eminence it would seem reasonable to conclude that the order of the list refers to him as the god in the highest authority.

29 Albright, Gods of Canaan, 121.

30 Albright, Archaeology, 75.

31 This goddess is also referred to at times as Astarte. See Coogan, Stories, 13.

32 For further information on the origin, role and relationship of this goddess to the OT, see John Day, "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature," JBL 105 (1986): 385-408.

33 See Day, "Asherah," 399.

34 Albright, Archaeology, 75. All three goddesses, Astarte, Asherah and Anat, expressed their sexuality in a sensual manner, not in a maternal way.

35 Perhaps this is why some scholars amend "Shamgar ben Anath" to read "Shamgar of Beth Anath" (Judges 3:31; 5:6) to indicate a city in which the goddess of war, Anath, was worshipped. See D. McIntosh, "Anath," in The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffery W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1988), I: 121.

36 Coogan, Stories, 13.

37 Albright, Gods of Canaan, 124.

38 Kapelrud, Baal, 119.

39 Cooper, "Canaanite Religion: An Overview," 39.

40 Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible, 34.

41 He is also titled, "Kothar-and Khasis" which means "the very Skillful and Intelligent One."

42 See Albright, Gods of Canaan, 135-37.

43 Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Ba'al in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), 58.

44 Albright, Gods of Canaan, 124. See also Ringgren, Religions, 131, who suggests that Baal referred to a proper name around the sixteenth to fifteenth centuries.

45 The deity Dagan and Dagan are probably to be identified as one and the same. See T. C. Mitchell, "Dagan," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed. ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1: 851.

46 L'Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite Gods, 12.

47 Kapelrud, Baal, 52-53.

48 Oldenburg, Conflict, 59, says: "The only likely etymology for the name hdd is the cognate Arabic root which means "to demolish with violence, with a vehement noise."

49 He is found in the Code of Hammurapi (CH Epilogue, XXVII: 64-80; ANET, 179), Enuma Elish (Enuma Elish, VII:47; ANET, 72) and had temples in Babylon, other cities, and indeed in his own city, Bib Karkar. See Oldenburg, Conflict, 61-64.

50 See Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 52. See also Anderson, "Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel," 52-53.

51 Oldenburg, Conflict, 58, f n 10.

52 Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 75, line 22: bd. aleyn b['l = "the victor Baal."

53 Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 47-48.

54 Anderson, "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal in Israel," 56. One must also consider the fact that he was responsible for the rains, and in that sense would be extremely attractive to the Israelites also.

55 Ringgren, Religions, 133.

56 Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 57. See also Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 55, ed. J. A. Emerton, et al. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), xxiv, 122-23.

57 There is debate about the precise significance of the phrase twbrub bkrl. Cf. A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: Psalms 1-72, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1: 484, who says: "It is possible that the appropriation of Baal's distinctive title reflects a deliberate religious polemic against the Canaanite beliefs."

58 Anderson, "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel," 58-59.

59 For discussion of this phenomena, as well as the following place names for Baal, see K. G. Jung, "Baal," in The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 377-78.

60 Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 109, argues against the idea that there are certain historical events behind the cycle. This seems reasonable as certain aspects of the cycle—fighting and defeating a sea monster—fit well into general Ancient Near East mythological ways of thinking. There is no need to postulate certain events in the history of Ugarit (or elsewhere) to account for the events in the myth. For a detailed critique of the seasonal interpretation and a statement of the support for a sequence of historical events behind the myth see C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949), 4-5. Anderson, "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel," 76 argues against Gordon saying that the Eastern Mediterranean is quite accurately described as a cycle between wet and dry seasons, so this cannot be used as evidence against a seasonal-cyclical interpretation of the myth.

61 Johannes C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts, Religious Texts Translation Series NISABA, ed. M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss, et al. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), 1. See also T. H. Gaster, "The Battle between the Rain and the Sea. An Ancient Semitic Nature-Myth," Iraq 4 (1937): 21-32; L. L. Grabbe, "The Seasonal Pattern of the Baal Cycle," UF 8 (1976): 57-63.

62 See KTU (Die keil-alphabetischen Texts aus Ugarit) 1.3: I.i; VI.iii as examples.

63 De Moor, Anthology, 29.

64 Cf. Pierre Bordreuil et Dennis Pardee, "Le combat de Ba Jlu avec Yammu d'apres les textes ougaritiques," MARI 7 (1993): 67, who say: "En revanche, la lutte entre Ba Jlu et Yammu semble avoir pour objectif la royaunt et ses deux symboles principaux, le trne et le palais."

65 See de Moor, Anthology, 25-26 (Baal II.iv lines 15-25).

66 Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 103, suggests that Ilu regarded Baal as a rival. So, with the defeat of Yammu, Ilu (or "El") was forced to accept and defer to Baal.

67 Anderson, "The Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel," 67.

68 Oldenburg, Conflict, 69.

69 Randall Fowler White, "Victory and House Building in revelation 20:1-21:8: A Thematic Study," (Ph. D. Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1987), has written an intriguing dissertation in which he argues that "victory/house-building" is a canonically developed theme in Scripture and accounts for its presence at the consummation after the victory in Revelation 20:1-21:8.

70 This may be due in part to Mot's connections with El. See J. L. Cunchillos, "Le dieu Mut, guerrier de El," Syria 62 (1985): 218, who says: "Mut est un fils de El, bn il de KTU 1.5: I: 12-14 et mme le fils aim sinon Prfr de El (ibidem). Mut est un bn ilm, fils de El et probablament d'Athirat. . . Dans les textes Mut joue le rle d'un guerrier, champion de El, dfenseur des <<fils d'Athirat>>."

71 Cf. Norman C. Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures (New York: Bookman Associates, 1964), 95.

72 Ringgren, Religions, 149.

73 See Peter C. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 74-76, who discusses the blind alley that Charles Virolleaud in 1933, and later Ginsberg in 1935, led scholars down in their interpretation of Deuteronomy 14:21. They saw a parallel with a reconstructed Ugaritic text which concerns itself with Canaanite cultic practices involving the cooking of a kid in its mother's milk. In Craigie's view, there is no such parallel and thus we are still uncertain about the meaning of Deut 14:21.

74 For a general statement of the problems of comparison, see Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament, 67-68. For a more detailed analysis of the role of OT studies in West Semitic studies, see Maurice Sznycer, "The Religions and Myths of the Western Semites—And Some Problems of Method," in Mythologies, 2 vols., trans. Wendy Doniger (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 1: 182-89, who says: "The first question we would raise in this regard concerns biblical studies, which have had an excessive influence on the development and orientation of West Semitic studies in general and on the study of West Semitic studies in particular."

75 Cf. Thomas Constable, "1 Kings," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 1:526, who says that "Mount Carmel was regarded by the Phoenicians as the sacred dwelling place of Baal." With this in mind, one certainly sees in the text the complete defeat of Baal "on his own turf."

76 Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament, 88-100.

77 See also Habel, Conflict, 24-26.

78 See Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987), 86 (the Greek mysteries of Dionysos).

79 See Eugene Merrill, "Numbers," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 1:245-46. See also Duane Litfin, "Judges," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 1:383, for a commentary on Judges 2:10-15 and the same problem of Baal worship later in Israel's history.

80 See Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, "1 and 2 Kings," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 144.

81 On the fact of Baal prophets and the nature of their so-called prophesying see, H. H. Rowley, "Elijah on Mount Carmel," BJRL 43 (1960): 202-03.

82 Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, The New century Bible, ed. Ronald E. Clements, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 2: 316.

83 Rowley, "Elijah," 195.

84 Rowley, "Elijah," 195. Melkart is regarded as the equivalent deity to Baal.

85 Cf. Allen P. Ross, "Psalms," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord, 2 vols. (Wheaton, Victor Books, 1985), 1: 815-16.

86 See A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: Psalms 1-72, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1: 233.

87 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 19 (Waco: Word Publishers, 1983), 245-46.

88 Habel, Conflict, 88.

89 See also Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, 82, who discusses words used in the same way and with the same meaning.

90 On the polemical relationship of Psalm 93 to the Ugaritic pantheon, see Rocky S. Miller, "Psalm 93: "A Polemic against Baal of the Ras Shamra Texts," Th. M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), see esp. 59-62. Concerning Psalm 104 see, Jonathon Clark Owen, "Psalm 104: Yahweh's Polemic Against the Ugaritic Pantheon," Th. M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985), see esp. 44-69.

91 Regarding the music of the psalms, see Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament, 79-82.

92 In Amos 1:1, Amos is referred to as a noqed. This has puzzled scholars. But cf. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament, 71-74. who discusses the possibility of the term having sacral connotations based upon the term nqd found in the Baal cycle. For a brief comment on the problem involved in interpreting this word, see Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, ed. Kenneth L. Barker (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 126-27.

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.

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.

17 pavn```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:

33¹⁴ pau'son th;n glw'ssavn sou ajpoV kakou' kaiV ceivlh sou tou' mhV lalh'sai dovlon. ¹⁵ e[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.

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.