Part Five of the New Testament Survey Series
Khen Lim
Image Source: buildingontheword.org
The First Letter
The moment you accustom yourself with the Pauline way with
letter writing, Peter’s style will feel disengaging because it is somewhat
quite different. By combining doctrine with application, Peter would begin each
paragraph with a command and then introduce the appropriate theology to
substantiate it.
A look at 1:1-2 reveals this practice when Peter begins by
calling Christians “God’s elect” and then bringing up the scattered exiles to
back up his statement. He then proclaims that God’s people, being born again,
have privileges and responsibilities but at the same time, they have attained
for themselves hope and inheritance for their future (1:3-9). Then he
establishes all of this by recalling the prediction of salvation offered by Old
Testament prophets (1:10-12).
Next, Peter tells Christians that they now live in a world in
which they will feel like aliens and strangers (2:11-4:11) and that, as
believers, they should focus on being submissive in their relationships to the
government (2:13b-17), as slaves to their masters (2:18-20) and as wives to
husbands (3:1-7). From 3:13-17, Peter also spoke of finding reason to rejoice
when suffering for Christ and in the climate of persecution, to be bold
witnesses.
From 1:1, it is reasonably clear that Peter wrote his first
letter around 62AD but no later than 63AD and from 5:13 where he wrote “she who
is in Babylon,” we could have some idea where he wrote it. The name ‘Babylon’
may be a reference to a world superpower, which at that time could be directed
at none other than the highly influential Rome.
The use of the female definite article is consistent with the
Grecian grammatical application to a church as in ‘h ekklhsia.’ If we put all of that
together, Peter may be referring to ‘the church in Rome’ although Scripture is
silent about this inference. As to an authorship date beyond 63AD, that would
be unlikely because Peter did write a second letter (next section) prior to his
martyrdom, which means there is too little time for that to happen.
Peter’s intended audience with his first letter were Gentiles
(1:18, 2:10, 4:3) who were now born-again Christians who lived in five of Asia
Minor’s Roman provinces spread across what is now modern-day Turkey (1:1).
Judging from what he wrote (1:12), saying, “those who have preached the Gospel
to you,” he did not evangelise them personally or perhaps he wasn’t the first
to reach them.
These were Christians who had been suffering under the sheer
weight of persecution because of their steadfast refusal to partake in the
pagan and immoral customs. Owing to that and also their preference to celebrate
their own Lord’s Supper, Rome had cast a deeply suspicious eye over them, which
then resulted in mockery, criticism and discrimination, which all then gave way
to trumped-up charges in court.
Of course, none of this is new to someone like Peter who
himself had suffered much for ministering the Word of God. He knew that
endurance had to come without bitterness and that ‘piety under pressure’ was
the way to glorify God. In other words, according to Peter, suffering must come
without despair but in great faith, living an obedient and triumphant life.
Peter’s first letter helps to shape our confidence in
anticipating our future glorification in Christ (1:3-12) and he does this very
well by drawing Christian Gentiles to Israel and then calling them ‘people of
God.’ Peter also uses Old Testament language such as ‘inheritance’ (1:4),
‘God’s household’ (4:17) and ‘the new temple’ (2:5) to stir up very strong
feelings and invoke vivid reminiscences.
He also ensures us that only by enduring every measure of the
suffering and in every bit of following Christ will we inherit eternal life.
And in that, he summons up Lev 11:44 and paraphrase God, saying, “Be holy, for
I am holy” but he also emphasises the importance of grace and not law for those
who believe in Christ (1:13).
He was certainly very noticeable at being adept at introducing
traditional Old Testament and Jewish narratives (Gen 6) as his way of
explaining how believers are victorious in Christ over evil. His mastery of the
ancient laws and the prophets and patriarchs characterised how his first letter
is so dependent on the Old Testament. In this letter alone, Peter quoted Old
Testament verses at least eight times by not only referencing them but also
suffusing them with concepts and vernacular that are reminiscent and reflective
of the old laws.
The Second Letter
Peter and brother Andrew seated next to Jesus (Image source: kmooreperspective.blogspot.my)
By the time Peter wrote his second and final letter, he
already knew that time was no longer a luxury to him. He knew he was running on
empty and facing the end of his life but he still could summon every ounce of
his energy and carve out every known opportunity to remind his audience of the
truth that they must hang on to (1:12-15), knowing all too well that these were
churches that were under imminent threats from authorities (2:1-3).
To rouse his audience, Paul exhorts them to remember (1:13)
and then to reflect on their thoughts (3:1-2) so that they could recall his
teachings (1:15) that revolved around the Old Testament prophecies concerning
the Lord’s coming and the Day of Judgement (3:1-13). He also warned them of the
emergence of faux teachings (2:1-22) by going to some detail in describing who
they were (2:1-3a).
He even used Old Testament examples (2:3b-10a) to condemn them
while he beseeched them to remain strong in their faith as the best way to
withstand their creeping influence. In further advancing his eschatological teachings
to the Christian Gentiles, Peter reminded them that only holy living will grant
them privileged access to the Second Coming (3:14) and from thereon, he
encouraged them to grow in grace and foreknowledge of Christ Jesus.
Like his first letter, authorship remains indisputable. 1:1
indicates that he signs in as “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus
Christ” and that alone should put the doubters away but apparently still, it
doesn’t. Modern biblical scholars can still find reason to cast doubt and
challenge its authenticity by forcing us to choose between a complete forgery
and a full dismissal of such claims.
To all these accusations, we persistently appeal to the Early
Church Fathers who saw absolutely no reason to either refute its authenticity
or exclude it from the Bible. And if they didn’t, we should take note and
believe that they are more right than wrong. For anyone to doubt Peter’s
penmanship here, the burden is on them to provide irrefutable proof but
conservative scholars tell us that has not been done with any worthwhile
conviction. And thus we believe it is entirely safe that Peter remains the
undisputed author.
Image source: seanmcdowell.org
As for the year in which Peter wrote his second and final
letter, we should consider the two important time posts. Firstly we know that
he was executed by Nero in Rome just before 68AD. We also know that his first
letter was penned around 63AD. If these are correct, then we could surmise that
his second letter was written around 65AD to 67AD.
We are, however, almost certain that he also wrote his second
letter in Rome. It was in this ancient seat of power that he had foreboding
premonitions of his time to come and that by doing so, he would fulfil the
Lord’s prophecy (1:13-14, Jn 21:18-19). While the Bible does not reveal how Peter
died, there are popular – yet unconfirmed – notions that Peter felt he was
unworthy of Christ to die the normal way let alone match the upright
crucifixion of his Lord whom he had betrayed not once but three times. By
alleging so, there are those who believe that he was crucified upside down.
Unlike his first letter, his intended audience here isn’t so
clear although he did address them in 1:1 as “those who through the
righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as
precious as ours.” Because he was neither specific nor offered sufficient
clues, we could assume that this letter is styled generically to have a
universal (or ‘catholic’) appeal.
But having said that, a more attentive reading of the letter
may then suggest that Peter had meant it for those who have been deeply
persecuted and were living under the threatening influence of faux teachers. To
add weight to this, he bore reference to the first letter being written to them
by saying, “my second letter to you” in 3:1. Putting the two together, it could
be safe to assume that his readers were the same Christian Gentiles.
In fact when we consider its contents, the second letter
appears to dovetail seamlessly with the first. Take for example Peter’s
reiteration against faux teachers for by now, there was serious concerns about
the inroads they have been making into the fledgling churches. Therefore he
again calls upon Christians to adopt maturity in their faith and to soundly
embrace the authenticity of the Word of God taught to them.
He further instructed them to fully understand the
significance of Christ’s Second Coming so that they could, when under threat,
discern the truth from the untruth. Only then could they identify apostasy and
thwart the efforts of the faux teachers. All of these have given Peter’s second
letter a decidedly negative complexion against faux teachings. The plentiful
warnings are Peter’s signature response to which no reader of his letter can
avoid.
If there is something very interesting about Peter’s second
letter, it is its strange similarities in parts to the letter of Jude. Both are
infused with strong denunciation of faux teachers and both utilise similar
condemning language. A simple comparison between the two letters will reveal
such evidence. In Peter’s case, the passages are 2:1, 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 17 and
then 3:3.
Matching these in the letter of Jude are Jd 4, 6-9, 12 and 18.
The order of appearance is uncanny and many of the words and expressions used
are novel in the Bible. All of these may then lead us to think that between the
two letters, one has to be the original and the other, a copy. In other words,
Peter and Jude could have had the kind of relationship in which both would
share mutual writing interests. The question therefore is who borrowed from
who?
Modern biblical scholars like to believe that Peter was the
borrower, possibly because he was but only a humble fisherman with limited
formal education. They do cite Jude’s passages as fuller in nature and more
descriptive in its contents. Peter’s, as they asserted, appear less so. All of
these, I might add, is pure conjecture of the prejudicial kind and nothing
else. We must not dismiss the possibility that both Peter and Jude could well
have borrowed by memory from a third but undisclosed and anonymous source in
similar fashion to the Quelle source used in the Synoptic Gospels.
As it was with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, it was not
uncommon during those days to borrow from one another. Just as we read from the
Acts account of the reverent treatment accorded James, it might not be
far-fetched to consider the possibility that indeed, Peter, as an apostle,
could have borrowed from another of the Lord’s brothers, Jude. When all is said
and done, the effect of one’s belief one way or another does not detract from
the thrust and power of what has been written and the message conveyed. It is
often the fact that we should pay far more attention at the content and not
other frivolous little issues that have often been raised by many modern
biblical scholars.
Part Six (First, Second and Third Letters of John the Apostle) will be available on January 13 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment