A Commentary on 1 & 2 Peter, Jude - NPHonline.nph.net/media/SampleFiles/PDF/1500788.pdf · 10 1 & 2...

A Commentary on 1 & 2 Peter, Jude

A Commentary on

1 & 2 Peter, Jude

David P. Kuske

Fourth printing, XXXXThird printing, XXXXSecond printing, XXXX

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—except for brief quotationsin reviews, without prior permission from the publisher.

Northwestern Publishing House1250 N. 113th St., Milwaukee, WI 53226-3284

www.nph.net © 2015 by Northwestern Publishing House

Published 2015Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 978-0-8100-2661-2

ISBN 978-0-8100-2661-2

Contents

1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Introduction to 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

1 Peter 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

1 Peter 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

1 Peter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

1 Peter 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

1 Peter 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

2 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Introduction to 2 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

2 Peter 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

2 Peter 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

2 Peter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

Jude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

Introduction to Jude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

Jude 1-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

1 Peter

Introduction to 1 Peter

General Content and Outline of the Letter

At the beginning of this letter, Peter sounds the theme that runslike a thread through all five chapters: “We have a sure hope.”The following outline indicates there are two key points about our

sure hope that Peter combines throughout this letter:

1. Jesus’ saving work established this sure hope.

2. This sure hope strengthens and motivates us to live our lives forChrist as we pass through the trials of this world on our way toour heavenly inheritance.

1:1,2 Address

1:3-12 You have a sure hope, an inheritance in heaven. 1:3-5 God provides this sure inheritance through Christ

and makes us sure heirs. 1:6-9 This sure hope gives us joy even when we experi-

ence painful trials because we know we are saved. 1:10-12 This salvation was carefully studied by the

prophets and angels.

1:13–2:3 Live with one another as sharers of this sure hope. 1:13-16 Let our hope lead us in our lives to be holy in all

we do. 1:17-21 Let the knowledge that God redeemed us by Jesus’

blood move us to live in godly fear. 1:22-25 Let our pure lives (into which we were born again

by God’s abiding Word) be characterized by lovefor one another.

2:1-3 Let us continually feed on God’s pure Word so thatwe may continue to grow in Christian living.

2:4-12 Be priests who hold this sure hope before the world with ourwords and actions.

2:4-7a Jesus is the precious living stone on which we arebuilt as living stones in a holy priesthood.

9

10 1 & 2 PETER, JUDE

2:7b-8 For the unbeliever, this living stone becomes astumbling block and a death trap.

2:9-12 We are royal priests who proclaim God’s goodnessby our words and our actions.

2:13–3:7 Witness to your sure hope by submitting to those inauthority.

2:13-17 We submit to government officials. 2:18-20 We submit to masters. 2:21-25 We submit, following the pattern left us by our suf-

fering Shepherd. 3:1-6 A Christian woman submits to her husband as a

witness to her hope. 3:7 A Christian husband does not let his wife’s God-

given role keep him from honoring her as a coheirof eternal life.

3:8-22 Witness to your sure hope by repaying evil with good. 3:8-12 It is God’s will that we repay evil with good. 3:13-17 Answering evil with good shames those who slan-

der us. 3:18-22 Look how Jesus, our exalted Savior, returned good

for evil.

4:1-11 Witness to your sure hope through complete separationfrom paganism and complete harmony among yourselves.

4:1-3 God wants us to make a complete break with thepagan world because of what Christ has made us.

4:4-6 We don’t concern ourselves with the judgments ofthose who laugh at us.

4:7-9 Let love be our bond with our fellow Christians. 4:10,11 Let us use our spiritual gifts to edify one another

and to glorify God.

4:12-19 Suffering for Jesus is not strange for those who have thissure hope.

4:12-16 Suffering for Christ is a sure sign that we belongto him.

4:17-19 Let God’s judgment of the unbeliever lead us tocommit ourselves anew to doing God’s will.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 PETER 11

5:1-11 This sure hope motivates both humble service to God andfirm resistance of the devil.

5:1-4 God wants elders to be humble shepherds ofGod’s flock.

5:5 God wants all of us to curb our pride and humblysubmit to one another.

5:6,7 The key is to humble ourselves before God. 5:8,9 Resist the devil, who is trying with all his might

to make us give up. 5:10,11 The same God who gave us this sure hope will also

enable us to persevere.

5:12-14 Closing words

Author, Date, Place, Recipients

The author of this letter is identified in 1:1. It is Peter who was an“apostle of Jesus Christ,” one of Jesus’ twelve disciples. In his secondletter (2 Pe 3:1), Peter indicates that he had written another letter atan earlier time. That earlier letter is 1 Peter.We can give only an approximate date of when Peter wrote this let-

ter. There are several things that suggest it was written in the earlyA.D. 60s: (1) In this letter Peter speaks of the Christians to whom hewas writing as undergoing a rather severe persecution (4:14-16; 5:8,9);(2) Nero ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, and the burning of Rome in A.D. 64led to Nero’s great persecution of Christians; (3) Peter’s second letter,written not long after this first letter, seems to have been composedjust before his death, toward the end of Nero’s reign; and (4) Peter’sacquaintance with all of Paul’s prison letters (2 Pe 3:16), the last ofwhich were written in the late A.D. 50s, suggests Peter did not writethis letter any earlier than A.D. 60.Peter identifies the people to whom he was writing as the Chris-

tians “scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” (1 Pe 1:1). All five of these areas are located in Asia Minor.Why does Peter write to these people, some of whom were members ofcongregations established by Paul (e.g., Galatia and Ephesus)? Thereare a number of reasons. Every apostle had a responsibility for thespiritual welfare of all Christians (2 Co 11:28), not just those whomGod brought to faith at the time of his personal ministry. Also, Paulwas most likely far away in Spain at this time, and these peopleneeded encouragement immediately. They were in the middle of a per-secution. So Peter took up the pen to strengthen and encourage themin the trying times they were facing.

A question that is frequently posed about the author is this: CouldPeter, an unschooled fisherman from Galilee, have written a letter insuch a high literary style as is evident in 1 Peter? Several answerssuggest themselves. Peter was an intense person, as we see from theglimpses we have of him in the gospels. This intensity may also haveled him to be determined to learn the Greek language better. The timefrom Jesus’ ascension in A.D. 30 or 33 until the time Peter wrote thisletter in the early A.D. 60s certainly gave him ample time to do this.Another possible answer is Peter’s comment in 1 Peter 5:12. TherePeter said that he wrote this letter “with the help of Silvanus [Silas].”The words “with the help of ” might indicate more than that Silvanuswas merely a secretary writing down what Peter dictated. Perhaps thebest answer lies in a combination of these two suggestions: Over theyears Peter became more and more proficient in Greek, and Silvanuscontributed some things to the style of 1 Peter as well.

Occasion and Purpose

The occasion was cited in the previous paragraphs: there was apersecution that was making life difficult for all the Christiansthroughout Asia Minor. In 5:12 Peter states his purpose for writing,namely, to encourage these Christians in their faith. He carries outthis purpose by assuring them that “God’s undeserved kindness willnot fail you” (5:12b).In 2 Peter 3:1, Peter adds that there was a more general purpose in

writing both 1 Peter and 2 Peter. He wanted to get the people to thinkclearly and correctly about the attacks on their faith by persecutionsand false teachers. He was doing this through both letters by remind-ing them of all the things God had spoken to them through the OldTestament prophets and the New Testament apostles.Simply stated, Peter’s purpose was to assure them that, in spite of

all the problems they faced, “God will restore you, steady you,strengthen you, and support you” (1 Pe 5:10).

Exegesis-Based Interpretation

The Bible Is God’s Inspired Word

The Bible is either all God’s Word or none of it is God’s Word. Theminions of Satan introduce an insidious process into Bible interpreta-tion by saying some of it is man’s word. Theories that try to make theBible partly God’s Word and partly man’s word eventually end updenying all the basic truths the Bible teaches. Galatians 5:9 says quitesimply, “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”



The theory that the Bible is partly man’s word also flies in the faceof what Scripture says about itself. First Corinthians 2:13 and 2 Peter1:21 say that the biblical writers did not use any words that wereman’s words but only words given by the Spirit. Thus, 2 Timothy 3:16declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” This truth is woventhroughout the fabric of Scripture. One cannot read along in the Biblevery far without coming across a declaration of, an allusion to, animplication about, or a reference to the fact that what one is readingis God’s Word (e.g., Ro 1:2,16; 2:2,8,12,16,18,20,29; 3:2,10,19,21,31;etc. throughout Romans).This fact has two important implications for exegesis-based inter-

pretation of Scripture. The first implication is that every word of averse is important since every word is God-breathed. Doing an exege-sis doesn’t mean taking a couple key words from a verse and basingone’s interpretation on those words. Rather, one needs to analyze everyword so that one ends up neither saying more nor saying less thanwhat God is saying in any given verse.The second implication is that one lets Scripture interpret Scrip-

ture. Interpretation dare not become what the interpreter thinks averse means but is always and only what God says a verse means.After analyzing each word of a verse in the original language, eachanalysis is then used to interpret the other words. If a word has sev-eral possible meanings, the other words in the verse are used to deter-mine which meaning fits this verse best. If a word or phrase modifiesanother word or phrase, one uses the modifier to help determine themeaning of the word or phrase it modifies. If the Greek syntax makesa phrase or clause a subordinate thought in a sentence, then the inter-preter can’t make it the main thought of the sentence.Once all the words in a verse have been taken into account in deter-

mining the meaning of the verse, then this meaning needs to be modi-fied by any thoughts in the surrounding verses that are adverbial oradjectival modifiers. Also, any parallel or subordinate thoughts that aretied to this verse by a conjunction are important in determining themeaning of the verse. Finally, any parallel verse (i.e., a verse that istalking about the same thing in the same or slightly different words)in the wider context of the chapter, the book, or all of Scripture must beused in determining the final meaning of the verse at hand. Exegesis-based interpretation of this kind is a time-consuming and painstakingprocess. But it is the only way the interpreter can say when he is donewith his exegesis, “This is what the Lord says!”Are there times when there are two possible interpretations of a

verse? Yes, but not very often. If one of the two possible interpretations

13


provides a meaning that is in conflict with another part of Scripture,that interpretation is not a valid one. The Holy Spirit would not haveled one of the writers to say something that would conflict with whatthe Spirit says elsewhere in Scripture. When the interpreter first con-siders a verse, he will at times see two possible valid meanings for theverse. But usually one of the meanings will be eliminated by a carefulstudy of which meaning fits best with the preceding or following con-text of the verse. On rare occasions, both meanings will be allowed tostand if (1) they are both in agreement with the rest of Scripture and(2) they both fit the context equally well.

Special Challenges in Doing Exegesis-Based Interpretation

In many ways the Greek and English languages are alike. Bothhave subjects and verbs that form the main thoughts of sentences.Both use adverbial and adjectival modifiers. Both use conjunctions toindicate coordinate and subordinate thoughts. Both have verb tensesand moods. Both use frequent prepositional phrases. These similaritiesease the task for the interpreter when he translates Greek to Englishor seeks to transfer a meaning from the one language to the other.Two slight differences complicate the interpreter’s task a little. One

is that a Greek writer often strings long sentences together with mul-tiple conjunctions and/or the use of many adjectival or adverbial mod-ifiers. Peter’s writing is a typical example. For this reason each sectionof exegesis in this book will begin with a diagram to help the readerpicture how each of the many parts of a sentence relates to another.A dashed line ( ) indicates a tie being made by a conjunctionbetween what follows and what precedes. A small arrowhead with adotted line ( ) indicates an adverbial modifier. A small arrow-head with a dashed line ( ) indicates an adjectival modifier. Alarger arrowhead with a solid line ( ) indicates the direct or indi-rect object of verbal action.Another slight difference is the constant use of the genitive case as

an adjectival modifier in Greek. It is easy to translate such genitiveswith a prepositional phrase beginning with “of ” in English. But doingso does not always make the meaning clear since “of ” phrases in Eng-lish can mean many different things. “Streets of gold” indicates whatthe streets were made of, but “soldiers of fortune” gives a reason whya person might become a soldier. “Spoils of victory” tells what theresults of victory are, but “hope of victory” suggests what a personlooks forward to when entering a battle or during the battle. The manyadjectival genitives in Greek pose the same problem as interpreting“of ” prepositional phrases in English.


Three major differences between Greek and English require specialattention by the interpreter:(1) The three tenses of the verb used most often in Greek stress dif-

ferent types of action more than the time of the action. The presenttense in Greek could more properly be called the continuing actiontense; the aorist tense more properly called the it happened tense1;and the perfect tense called the completed action with continuingresult tense. Since the meaning of tenses is a key difference of Greekfrom English, in this book a comment will be made on the signifi-cance of the tense of almost every verbal form. Though in some versesthese comments may not be critical to the meaning, it is helpful tosee that the use of tenses is consistent in meaning. Then when onebases a conclusion on the use of a Greek tense (e.g., the perfect par-ticiple dedoxasmevnh/ in 1 Pe 1:8b), it will be clear that this is what theword really means rather than just being a whim of the interpreter.(2) Both the use of an article with a noun and the lack of an article

are significant. Though there are other meanings of an article usedwith a noun in Greek (e.g., generic or indicating two nouns form oneidea), most often the article stresses that the noun is specific/definite(i.e., the one and only, the well-known, the aforementioned, a posses-sive idea such as “his” or “hers”). Though the lack of an article mayindicate a noun is nonspecific/indefinite (i.e., some kind of . . .), mostoften it is qualitative. This is true when no article is used with a noun,but the noun is made specific/definite by the context (most often by anadjectival modifier). Then the writer or speaker is stressing the quality(the essence, the vocable meaning) of the noun. We might do the samething in English by underlining a word, putting it in bold type or ital-ics, or all three. An example would be cavri~. With the article (hJ cavri~),the meaning is “the one and only, the well-known undeserved kindness(of God).” Without the article but modified by an adjectival genitive(cavri~ qeou'), the emphasis shifts to the quality of cavri~, “the kindnessof God that is totally undeserved.” The meaning is not radically differ-ent, but there is a clear difference in what is being emphasized. In thisbook a comment will be made often about the use or nonuse of an article.Again, though the difference in emphasis may not always be critical, it

1Some grammarians still say the aorist is the “onetime action tense.” It is truethat when something happens, it usually happens only once. But there are somany examples of the aorist not being a onetime happening that this is notthe best way to begin to interpret the aorist tense. There are several examplesalready in the first ten verses in 1 Peter 1 of aorists that are not onetime hap-penings: verse 6 luphqevnte"; verse 10 ejxezhvthsan kai; ejxhrauvnhsan.

is important to see that the meaning of the use or nonuse of an articleis consistent. Then, when a conclusion is based on this aspect of Greekgrammar (e.g., Peter uses no articles with the four nouns in 2 Pe 2:9a),it will establish that the interpretation is not a whim of the interpreter.(3) The Greek uses participles in almost every sentence—often mul-

tiple participles of different kinds. Some participles complete the ideaof the verb (supplementary), some modify a noun in the sentence eventhough the participle is a verbal form (adjectival/attributive), andsome participles modify a verbal action (adverbial/circumstantial).How does one sort through this problem and interpret properly? Prob-ably the best way is to try English translations that help determinewhat kind of participle each is: a supplementary participle can betranslated by a phrase that indicates how it completes the main verb(“he began to speak” or “he said that he is coming”); an adjectival/attributive participle can be translated by a relative clause (“the Lordwho sent his son”); an adverbial/circumstantial participle by an adver-bial clause (“while he spoke . . .” or “because he spoke . . .” or “althoughhe spoke . . . ,” etc.). But determining the kind of participle is only thebeginning of interpretation. The next step is to spell out, especially inthe case of the adjectival/attributive or adverbial/circumstantial par-ticiples, exactly how this participial modifier contributes to the mean-ing of the verse. Not surprisingly then, in this book a good deal of timewill be devoted to interpreting participles.

Establishing Which Variant Is to Be Used in Interpreting a Verse

When the printing press enabled mass production of the Greek NewTestament starting in the 16th century, the only witnesses of theGreek New Testament used to produce the Greek text were minus-cules that had been copied in Byzantium from the 10th to the 15thcenturies along with a few early translations. This text became knownas the Textus Receptus, but the various editions were not a uniformtext. There were various forms of the Textus Receptus (e.g., one in Eng-land, another in continental Europe). The editors in each case usedthe copies they had at hand, so there were variants from one form ofthe Textus Receptus to another.In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries many more minuscules and

early translations—as well as quotations from the church fathers, lec-tionaries, and copies of the Greek New Testament going back to the 4ththrough 6th centuries (uncials)—were found and used by editors in pro-ducing Greek New Testament texts. Unfortunately, rationalistic influ-ence led to a theory that said the New Testament text was not a result


of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. Instead, rationalists viewed the NewTestament as having evolved over four or five centuries as humanschose to add to or subtract from the text. Westcott and Hort’s theorysaid that uncials Aleph and B were the purest result of this evolutionand that other witnesses were more tainted. This theory held sway atthe end of the 19th century into the first half of the 20th century.The discovery of the papyri at the end of 19th century clearly indi-

cated that there was no evolutionary process at work during the firstcenturies of the New Testament era. Early copies of the papyri datingback to the 2nd and 3rd centuries were so similar to New Testamentcopies from the 4th through 6th centuries that it was acknowledgedby any unbiased observer that there could not have been an evolution-ary process.Today, there are still some who adhere to the Textus Receptus text

or the Westcott-Hort text. But the former text is based only on NewTestament witnesses of the 10th through 15th centuries. Those whohold to the Textus Receptus theory do so mainly because they want touphold the KJV or some derivative of the KJV text. The Westcott-Horttext is based on only a small number of uncials from the early cen-turies. Those who uphold the theory of Westcott-Hort do so mainlybecause they approach Scripture from a rationalistic viewpoint. Bothare faulty approaches because, for a subjective reason, each uses onlya portion of the total number of extant witnesses to the New Testa-ment text.Let’s use a simple example to illustrate the proper approach to tex-

tual criticism. A teacher of 30 high school students asks them to copythree pages of text while he dictates. After reading, he burns the orig-inal text he has in his hands. Can the original text be restored withany accuracy? Yes. How? By collecting all the copies the students madeand comparing them with one another. The teacher can’t just use threeor four of the copies from one side of the room or three or four copiesfrom the other side of the room. He may come pretty close to restoringthe original if he takes only a portion of the copies, but he could bemuch more sure if he uses them all. Here and there one or two stu-dents might have misspelled a word or inverted words or omitted aword or changed a word. But for the particular sentence where one ofthese things happens, the copy or two with such a “variant” could beignored and the other 28 or 29 copies that have the same wordingcould confidently be declared the same as the original.In the same way, the only objective way to work with the New Tes-

tament variants is to use all the witnesses of the text that God haspreserved for us, taking into account the date of each witness and the


geographical region it represents. When one variant is recorded incopies that are early and represent many regions while the other vari-ant is in copies that are either later or represent only one or tworegions, the former can safely be considered the original. This will bethe approach used in this book when considering variants in a verse.It must be added that the consideration of variants is never a very

important part of exegesis-based interpretation. This is true becauseless than one tenth of one percent of the text has variants that are ofany real significance for interpretation (an observation made byWestcott-Hort). And none of these few variants of significance haveany doctrinal importance. For these reasons, though the TextusReceptus text and the Westcott-Hort text each use only a select por-tion of all the witnesses, one will not end up with differing doctrinessolely because one used either of these texts. Having said this, it mustalso be stated that all variants of any significance should be givencareful consideration on the basis of all the witnesses God has pre-served for us. We are dealing with God’s words, and we do not wantto treat even one of those words lightly.

The Translation Used in This Exegesis of 1 Peter

In 2005, Northwestern Publishing House gathered five men to pro-duce a translation of 1 Peter directly from the Greek text. This wasdone as part of a test project to see whether there was a desire in theWisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod for a new translation of theNew Testament done by conservative Lutheran translators. One of theresults of this committee’s work is the translation used in this exeget-ical commentary on 1 Peter.The aforementioned translation will be given at the beginning of

each portion of 1 Peter, just before the Schema of that section. In thediscussion of a verse or a part of a verse, a literal translation of theGreek will usually be given. This is done because a literal translationoften helps lead into the explanation of the words under discussion.The reader should also note that sometimes the word order in a Greeksentence or phrase has been changed from the Nestle-Aland Greektext in order to line up in interlinear fashion with the literal transla-tion. This was done only to help the reader see what literal Englishwords translate the corresponding Greek words.


1 Peter 1

Peter begins his letter in the usual way that letters were written inhis day. First, he identifies himself as the author. Then, he identifiesthe people to whom he is writing. And, finally, he greets these peoplewith a prayer that God might multiply two of the spiritual blessingshe gives.

Translation of 1 Peter 1:1,21This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. I’m writing tothe people God chose who are scattered as temporary residents in Pon-tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 2God the Father whoknew you long ago chose to make you holy by the Spirit. He chose youso that you would obey Jesus Christ, and Jesus would sprinkle youwith his blood. May his undeserved kindness and peace be yours moreand more!

19


• The use of the nominative case (Pevtro" = “Peter”) here, as at thebeginning of every Greek letter, identifies the person who is theauthor of this letter.

• The word ajpovstolo" (“apostle”) is an appositive. As such, it indi-cates that this is an important characteristic of the author of thisletter. An apostle is a person who was chosen by a person inauthority and sent out as his personal representative.

• The word ajpovstolo" is the noun form of the verb ajpostevllw,�whichmeans “to send out.” The word ajpovstolo" still retains this basic idea,but it also came to be a technical term denoting an office in theChristian church. An apostle is a church leader who has a respon-sibility for the spiritual welfare of the whole church (2 Co 11:28,29).As an apostle, then, Peter writes this letter (1) with the author-ity of the one who chose him for this office and (2) because hehas a responsibility to encourage and strengthen these perse-cuted Christians.

• The genitive ∆Ihsou' Cristou' (“Jesus Christ”) modifies ajpovstolo".The best understanding of this genitive doesn’t seem to be posses-sion. This would stress that Jesus Christ “owns” Peter. Rather, itseems best to take it as a subjective genitive. Jesus Christ is theone who chose Peter to be an apostle and sent him out as his per-sonal representative.

• The word ∆Ihsou' means “Savior from sin” (Mt 1:21), and the wordCristou' (“Anointed”) often refers to Jesus as the promised Messiah(Mt 2:4; 16:16-20). The meanings of these names form the messagethat Peter will use in this letter to comfort and strengthen hisreaders in the persecution they are suffering.

• The use of the dative case (ejklektoi'" = “elect, chosen”) here, as inevery Greek letter, indicates the people to whom Peter is writingthis letter.

• The word ejklektoi'"means “selected, chosen” out of a group. Chris-tian theology uses the technical term “elect” to translate this word.

1 PETER 1 21

The elect are those whom God chose before the creation of theworld to belong to him (Eph 1:4).

• Why does Peter use this term in referring to readers of this letter?Most likely his purpose is to remind these people who are sufferingpersecution that they belong to God because he chose them longbefore they were ever born. As his elect, God will also make every-thing in their lives serve his goal of bringing them to the eternalglory he has prepared for them (Ro 8:28-30).

• Peter adds an appositive to focus on one important truth about theelect. The word parepidhvmoi"means “staying for a while in a placewhere one really doesn’t belong.” The Christians to whom Peter iswriting may be living in the five regions he mentions. But they areonly temporary residents in these places. The real, permanenthome of the elect is in heaven, as he will remind them shortly inverse 4 and again later in 5:4 (cf. also Heb 11:9f ) .

• The descriptive genitive diaspora'" defines parepidhvmoi" further.A diasporav�is “a scattering, a dispersion.” It is used here to makethe point that the people to whom Peter is writing are not all livingin one place. They are scattered over five different regions. Thelack of an article with diaspora'" stresses the essence of this word,namely, that most of them live far apart from one another.

• Peter spells out the regions where they live. All five are genitivecase, appositives to diaspora'". A quick glance at a map of theRoman provinces at that time reveals that all were regions in thewestern two-thirds of present-day Turkey. Pontus was in the north;Cappadocia, in the east; Galatia, in the south; Asia, in the west;and Bithynia, in the northwest.

• This is the first of three prepositional phrases that modify ejklektoi'"(“elect”). Peter often uses triads (three prepositional phrases, threesynonyms, etc.) as part of his literary style.

• A basic preposition, katav, refers to two things that are placedalongside each other. The reader has to figure out from the con-text what is the relationship of the two (in line with each other,against each other, going from one to the other, both reaching thesame level, etc.). Here the two things placed alongside each other


are God’s election of Peter’s readers and God’s “foreknowledge”(provgnwsin) of them.

• The word provgnwsi" speaks of knowledge one has prior to a giventime. The lack of the article stresses this basic essence of theword. Later, in verse 20 of chapter 1, Peter uses this word in ref-erence to God’s knowledge of Christ. There he identifies the timeChrist was chosen as being prior to the creation of the world.Ephesians 1:4 also identifies the time of God’s election of believ-ers as prior to creation.

• Romans 8:29 explains how God’s foreknowledge and election are“in line with” (katav) each other. There Paul says that God’s electionof believers was based on God’s foreknowing them. It would bewrong to say that God’s foreknowledge identified something betterin these people than in others and that is why God elected them.Ephesians 1:5 says clearly that God’s election was completely amatter of his will and so is another demonstration of his unde-served kindness.

• The genitive qeou' (“of God”) is subjective. God is the one who knewthose beforehand whom he then elected. The appositive patrov"identifies “the Father,” the first person of the triune God, as theone who did the foreknowing and then also the electing.

• Why does Peter add the katav prepositional phrase as a modifierof the idea of election? Because it highlights all the more the com-fort he wants his readers to take from their election. God knewthem before the world began and chose them to be his own. InRomans 8:33ff Paul summarizes the comfort this gives: Thosewhom God knew from eternity and has chosen to be his own canknow that nothing—not trouble, hardship, or persecution—canever separate them from the love of God.

• This is a second prepositional phrase modifying ejklektoi'" (“elect”).The preposition ejn indicates that God’s election took place only “inconnection with” the work of the Holy Spirit. The connectionbetween the two is that God already had the call to faith by theSpirit in mind when he chose the elect.

1 PETER 1 23

• The subjective genitive pneuvmato" identifies “the Spirit” as the onewho makes God’s elect holy. The word aJgiasmov",�when usedtogether with the Holy Spirit, refers to the Spirit “making peopleholy” by bringing them to faith. Second Thessalonians 2:13 alsospeaks of the connection between God’s choosing people from eter-nity and this work of the Spirit: “In the beginning God chose youto be made holy by the Spirit” (GWN). Romans 8:29,30 adds thatthe call to faith by the Spirit is the third step that follows naturallyout of the first two steps of God foreknowing us and predestiningus to be his own.

• The lack of the article with aJgiasmov" emphasizes the basic mean-ing of this word, namely, “to make people holy.” The next preposi-tional phrase in this triad will expand on this thought.

• The preposition eij" used with the two verbal nouns, uJpakoh;n and�rJantismo;n, expresses result. Like the two previous prepositionalphrases in this triad, this phrase also modifies ejklektoi'" (“elect”),giving the result of God’s election. Just as there was a connectionin thought between the first and second phrases, there is alsoa connection in thought between the second phrase and thisphrase. Thus, one can also say that these verbal actions arethe two results (coordinate kai; = “and”) of the Spirit making theelect holy.

• The first of the two verbal nouns, uJpakoh;n, means “obedience.”When we read the word obedience, our thoughts might turn quitenaturally to the idea of living a sanctified life. However, we alreadynoted that this phrase is connected to the previous phrase, namely,the Spirit’s making the elect holy by calling them to faith. This facttogether with the connection of uJpakoh;n with rJantismo;n ai{mato"(“sprinkling of blood”), indicated by the coordinating kai;, suggesta different meaning for uJpakoh;n here.

• In Romans 1:5 and 16:26, Paul uses the appositional genitivepivstew" (“faith”)�to explain what he means by uJpakoh;n (“obedi-ence”). In Romans 15:18 Paul uses uJpakoh;n without any modifier


to express the idea of faith. In the present verse, it also seems bestto take Peter’s use of uJpakoh;n as a reference to faith.

• In what sense can faith be characterized as obedience? Numerouspassages speak of faith in terms of “obeying the truth” (Gal 5:7; Ro2:8; 1 Pe 1:22) or “obeying the gospel” (Ro 10:16; 2 Th 1:8; 1 Pe 4:17)or “obeying the word” (1 Pe 3:1). Note that Peter uses all three ofthese expressions for faith in this letter. The context in each ofthese passages implies a contrast between rejecting and acceptingGod’s free gift of salvation. So “obedience” becomes almost equalin thought to accepting the gospel/truth/Word. The lack of thearticle underscores this basic idea of uJpakoh;n, namely, obeyingrather than rejecting. This obedience/accepting is not our decisionbut is always the work of the Spirit in our hearts—as Peter clearlysays in one of the passages previously cited (1 Pe 1:22).

• To the sequence of God’s foreknowledge, the Spirit’s work of mak-ing holy, and obedience/believing, Peter adds a fourth and finalpoint, namely, “sprinkling with the blood” (rJantismo;n ai{mato") ofJesus Christ. This sprinkling is tied closely to obedience/believingby the coordinate kai; (“and”).

• The sprinkling of blood takes us back to the Old Testament wherethis action was the sign of the outward purification (Heb 9:13,19,21)of people and also of items in the tabernacle. Hebrews 12:24stresses that it is only the sprinkled blood of Jesus that really puri-fies. It is the sprinkling of his blood on the hearts of New Testamentbelievers that cleanses their guilty consciences. That is the pointPeter is also making here by using this picture for his readers. Obe-dience is the acceptance by faith of the truth that God sprinkledJesus’ blood on them, removing all their sins.

• Ai{mato" (“blood”) is an objective genitive. It is what God hassprinkled on believers through the Spirit’s sanctifying work. And∆Ihsou' Cristou' (“of Jesus Christ”) is a possessive genitive, statingwhose blood God sprinkled on believers.

• The third item at the beginning of most letters at Peter’s timewas a prayer for the reader(s) of the letter. The verb plhqunqeivhis aorist passive optative. So it is a prayer that expresses

1 PETER 1 25

what Peter is eager (optative) to have happen (aorist) to his read-ers (passive).

• This verb means “to increase greatly, to multiply.” The readers ofthis letter are believers who already have the two things that arethe subjects of this passive verb. Peter’s prayer is that they mayhave these things in an ever-increasing abundance.

• Cavri" is God’s grace or “undeserved kindness.” God provided sal-vation as a free gift. So this word expresses not only what God didbut that he did it because he simply chose to do it—not becauseanyone had earned it. Grace is the cause of our salvation.

• Eijrhvnh is the “peace” believers have with God. Because of our sin,we were under God’s judgment and doomed to eternal punish-ment. When God in his undeserved kindness removed our sinthrough Jesus’ redeeming work, our relationship with God wascompletely changed. We no longer fear God but can come to himas dear children come to their dear father. Peace is the result ofour salvation.

• These two blessings are accomplished facts, and so the blessingsthemselves can’t really be increased. When Peter prays that unde-served kindness and peace be increased, the dative uJmi'n (indirectobject) indicates in what way the increasing would take place. Theincrease would be a growing appreciation of these two blessingson the part of the readers of this letter. This growing appreciationis important at all times, but it was especially important at thistime in the lives of the persecuted believers to whom this letter isaddressed. To know God’s undeserved kindness and peace betterand better would steady and strengthen them (1 Pe 5:10) in theface of the attacks being made on their faith.

Summary and Application of 1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter begins his letterby reminding his readers of their election. With a triad he underscoreswhat their election means for them: (1) God knew them before theworld was created, chose them as his own, and now guides everythingfor their good; (2) God’s election led to the Spirit working faith in theirhearts; and (3) that faith is an obedience that accepts the truth of thegospel and brings the purifying sprinkle of Jesus’ blood on them. Now,as they face persecution, Peter pleads with God to strengthen them intheir faith by constantly increasing their appreciation of God’s unde-served kindness and peace.We too are God’s elect. Think of what that means. God knew us from

eternity and so nothing can separate us from his love during our lives.

The Spirit worked faith in us to carry out God’s intention in choosingus. Now we, as a result of God’s election, obey/accept the truth of thegospel and have our hearts cleansed of all guilt by the sprinkling ofJesus’ blood. May we continue to grow in our appreciation of God’s unde-served kindness and peace through faithful use of the means of grace!

Translation of 1 Peter 1:3-53Praise God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his greatmercy he has given us a new birth by raising Jesus Christ from thedead. Therefore we have a living hope—4an inheritance that does notdecay or spoil or fade away. God has made this inheritance secure foryou in heaven. 5Now God’s power protects you by faith until the endof time. Then God will reveal the salvation he has ready for you.


• A verb such as the optative ei[h (3rd singular present of eijmiv = “tobe”) needs to be supplied with eujloghto;". Peter is encouraging hisreaders to “speak well” (the basic meaning of the Greek words euand log) of God. The word implies that a person has done somethingspecial for which he is to be spoken well of or praised. In verses 3and 4 Peter will explain what God did that was worthy of praise.

• The word path;r (“Father”) is joined with qeo;" (“God”) as a singlethought (one article used with two words joined by kai;). Peterwants his readers to think of God as their dear Father—one wholoves them, watches over them, and cares for them.

• Tou' kurivou (“the Lord”) is a possessive genitive. Strictly speaking,the Father is not owned by the Lord Jesus. Rather, the possessivegenitive is one of the ways in the New Testament of expressing theclose unity of the persons of the Trinity.

• The word kuvrio" means “one who is in control.” In Ephesians 1:22Paul explains that the Father put everything under Jesus’ controlfor the good of the church. Jesus guides and controls everythingin the interest of God’s saving plan to bring the elect safely to theirheavenly home.

• The possessive genitive hJmw'n (“our”) adds the comforting thoughtthat believers can claim the One who controls all things (kuvrio")as their very own. They do not stand apart from him in fear, butthey embrace him as the One who now is guiding everything fortheir eternal good.

• The appositives ∆Ihsou' Cristou' (“Jesus Christ”) emphasize that theOne who controls all things for the good of believers is their Saviorfrom sin (∆Ihsou') and the One whom God promised and sent(Cristou') for this very purpose. This adds even more comfort to thefact that he is their kuvrio".

• The attributive (adjectival) participle oJ ajnagennhvsa" (“who gavenew birth”) points to a special characteristic of God the Father.

1 PETER 1 27

God gave Peter and his readers (hJma'" = “us”) a second birth,the spiritual birth of faith. The aorist tense indicates that thishappened—it is a fact. The verb ajnagennavw is used only one othertime in the New Testament—later in verse 23 of this same chap-ter. There Peter states how this second birth is brought about,namely, through the Word of God. The meaning is the same as inJohn 3:3 where Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless he is bornagain (gennavw + a[nwqen = “be born from above”), he can’t enterGod’s kingdom.

• Using the picture of birth for coming to faith underscores the ideathat the person who believes doesn’t bring about the spiritual lifeof faith in himself. It is all God’s doing.

• The prepositional phrase kata; to; polu; aujtou' e[leo" (“according tohis great mercy”) is one of three prepositional phrases modifyingthe participle oJ ajnagennhvsa" (cf. Schema). This is another exampleof the use of triads in Peter’s literary style.

• Here, as in verse 2a (cf. the note on kata; there), God’s giving of asecond birth and his “mercy” (e[leo") are placed alongside eachother by the preposition kata;. The relationship between the two issimply that what God did was an act of mercy.

• e[Eleo" refers to a person seeing someone else in dire need ofhelp and then acting to give the help the person needs. Theadjective polu; (“much, great”) indicates that the situation whichPeter and his readers were facing was so bad that they neededa lot of help. They were spiritually dead as a result of their sins(Eph 2:1), but God in his mercy made them spiritually alive(Eph 2:4,5).

• The article makes e[leo" specific, as explained by the genitive aujtou'(“his”). Aujtou' refers to God the Father and identifies him as theOne who showed mercy (subjective genitive) in the time of Peter’sand his readers’ need.

Summary and Application of 1 Peter 1:3a,bWhat Peter says abouthimself and his readers is also true of us. We were in a terrible spiri-tual condition. Our sins condemned us in God’s sight, and we could donothing on our own to believe in Jesus the Savior from sin. But Godsaw our great need and sent the Holy Spirit to work faith in our hearts(Ro 5:5). Peter urges his readers to praise God for the mercy he showedthem. Certainly this is also a reason for us to praise God with both ourlips and our lives!


• The second and third prepositional phrases in Peter’s triad givethe result and the means by which God gave Peter and his readersa new birth.

• The preposition eij" used with a verbal noun expresses result.When God gives a person a second birth, that person has “hope”(ejlpivda). The lack of an article with ejlpivda gives special emphasisto the basic meaning of “hope.” Hope is something special to lookforward to in the future. In verse 4 Peter identifies this hope as awonderful inheritance in heaven.

• The adjective zw'san describes this hope as “living.” This hope isliving in the sense that it really exists rather than being dead, notreal. The adjectives in verse 4 describing the inheritance willexplain this thought further.

• The means (dia; with the genitive) by which this hope was estab-lished as real was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. ajAnastavsew"and nekrw'n are both without the article, highlighting the basicmeaning of each, namely, “coming back to life” (ajnastavsew") andso “separated from” (ejk) the other “dead corpses” (nekrw'n).

• Christ’s resurrection assures all believers that he will also raisethem from the dead (Jn 14:19), transform their bodies to be likehis glorified body (Php 3:20,21), and give them life forever withhim in heaven (1 Th 4:17). That is their living, real hope.

Summary and Application of 1 Peter 1:3c God’s giving us the sec-ond birth of faith has an amazing result. We have a wonderful futureto look forward to. It is not the kind of hope a sad lady expressed whenher husband died: “I hope he is where I know he ain’t.” No, this is areal hope. We are sure of this hope because Christ’s resurrectionproved that he conquered death. We know death can’t hold us in itscruel grip. When Christ comes in glory, death will have to yield to hiscommand (1 Co 15:57) so that he can take us to the heavenly home hehas prepared for us (Jn 14:3).

1 PETER 1 29

A Commentary on 1 & 2 Peter, Jude - NPHonline.nph.net/media/SampleFiles/PDF/1500788.pdf · 10 1 & 2...

Documents

Transcript of A Commentary on 1 & 2 Peter, Jude - NPHonline.nph.net/media/SampleFiles/PDF/1500788.pdf · 10 1 & 2...