6.5 Predestination in the Rest of the New Testament

This continues the discussion of Psalm 139 and Paul's letters.
__________________________
1. While Romans 9 is the passage we most associate with the question of predestination, we find strong predestination language in other parts of the New Testament as well. The question is what function this language performs. Is it a core element of New Testament theology, or is it largely rhetorical language that performs some other function?

One of the great insights of the twentieth century was that the meaning of words is a function of how they are used. [1] Meaning is far more in what words do rather than in some static content they contain. J. L. Austin used the example of saying "I do" at a wedding. [2] These words effectively marry a couple, a function that goes far beyond the simple meaning of the two words.

So, if we wish to understand predestination language in the various writings of the New Testament, we need to know what those words were doing. Was their function to make a theological statement, or was it primarily something else? For example, did that language primarily point to God being in control of everything? Was it to express the great value God places on those who follow him?

A couple more examples may be helpful. A person may say a good many words when they are afraid. The particular words themselves may not actually be the point but rather the fact that they are deeply afraid. Anyone who has participated in a marital spat might testify that things can be said that are not really meant in terms of the words themselves. Rather, their function may be to express hurt, insecurity, or anger.

2. We might begin with 1 Peter, perhaps the closest writing in time to Paul's letters of the other New Testament books. The very beginning of the letter describes its audience as "elect exiles... according to the foreknowledge of God by the sanctification of the Spirit" (1:1-2). The connection of God's foreknowledge with the exiles being chosen is reminiscent of Romans 8:29.

As a quick sidenote, there has been some debate in the history of the interpretation of 1 Peter as to whether these were literal or metaphorical exiles. For example, in his early work, John H. Elliott argued that the letter addressed individuals whom the Roman Empire had literally exiled. [3] However, most now take this language metaphorically, as did Elliott himself in his later work. [4] That is to say, calling the audience exiled is a reference to their marginalization within society.

Returning to 1 Peter 1:1-2, the question is what did God foreknow in this case? Did he foreknow that they would exist and chose them unconditionally and irresistably? Did God foreknow that they would exercise faith in Christ and thus plan for the Spirit to sanctify them? Or is foreknowledge and election language performing some other function?

The sense that the foreknowledge leads to obedience to Jesus might imply that the election according to foreknowledge had to do with their salvation. Later in the letter, 2:8 seems to imply that those Jews who rejected Christ were appointed to do so. These observations point toward individual predestination based on God's foreknowledge.

At the same time, the letter consistently urges its audience to choose to take certain moral actions. For example, they are not to use their freedom as an excuse to do evil (2:16). They are to be holy in their conduct (1:!5). They are to put away malice (2:1), stay way from the passions of the flesh (2:11), and turn away from evil (3:8). These instructions assume that they have a legitimate choice in what they do.

The tension in this language may suggest that language of election is doing something different than expressing literal determinism. Indeed, 2 Peter 1:10 exhorts its audience to be diligent to make its calling and election certain -- a seeming contradiction. [5] How can human effort confirm one's election if one's election is purely a matter of God's determination?

In 1 Peter, there may be a correlation between the alienation of the audience and election language. Groups that are marginalized and persecuted can easily develop a "remnant" theology where they view themselves as set apart by God amid a broader culture that has ostracized them. We find this same dynamic among the Dead Sea Scrolls, arguably written and preserved by marginalized Essenes. [6]

In this sense, the function of this language would in part be to affirm God's approval on a group that, from a worldly point of view, would seem to be an "out-group." Appearances would say, "This group is wrong. This group is odd. This group is weak and dishonored." Election language indicates rather that this group is chosen. This group is the truly valued. This group is honored.

Therefore, within that function of the language, normal imperatives implying freedom of choice would still be in play. The audience is chosen and elect, but they also exercise undetermined choice -- as do those who have rejected faith.

3. As we have seen, the Augustinian/Calvinist way of reconciling these two sets of imagery is to privilege the deterministic language and to make language of choice phenomenological. That is to say, we appear to have choice but we really do not. This is soft determinism. We behave as if we are making free choices even though we are not.

However, this approach to harmonizing the two sets of language seems anachronistic. It is nowhere expressed in the text itself. It is a philosophical solution to the puzzle that is imposed on the text.

Yet we might say the same thing of the Arminian approach that says, "God foreknows our choice and predestines us accordingly." This also seems to fill in blanks that the text does not. It seems yet another philosophical solution that is imposed on the text.

4. The books of Luke-Acts also seem to live in this tension, although they do not share 1 Peter's sense of social alienation. Acts 13:48 is a good starting point for the theology of Luke-Acts on predestination: As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. [7] Acts is referring to those Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch who end up believing. The perfect tense is used in this verb construction, suggesting that they were appointed at some point in the past and remain appointed to the present.

Certainly on a surface level, this statement sounds like determinism. Some believed. Some did not. What made the difference? Some were appointed to believe and others were not.

Yet we also find language in Luke-Acts that could be taken to indicate the contrary. Just two verses before the verse we just quoted, Paul tells the Jews who do not believe that they have "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" (13:46). It at least sounds like they used their agency to reject the word of the Lord -- they did it themselves.

Similarly, in Stephen's sermon in Acts 7, he indicts the leaders of Jerusalem by saying that they "always resist the Holy Spirit" (7:51). If God was determining what they chose, then this verse would be saying that God caused them to resist the Holy Spirit. This does not seem to be what Luke was saying here. The Jerusalem leaders thus seem to have agency in their rejection of the movement of the Holy Spirit.

How can we reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements in a way that would have made sense in the first century?

5. One option again is to suppose that deterministic language is expressing something other than literal predeterminism. Deterministic language was a feature of much ancient culture. We find it expressed, for example, in the Oedipus story. Oedipus' father is told that he will be murdered by his son, who will then marry his mother. Horrified, the king has his son exposed and left for dead.

But of course Oedipus grows up and hears the prophecy himself. In horror, he flees what he thinks is his hometown and, without knowing it is his true father, kills him in an encounter. He then unknowingly goes to Thebes, where he ends up marrying his mother.

Everyone in this story seems to exercise freedom of choice, and yet the end result is exactly that which is fated. Presumably, the ancients lived within this paradox of freedom that results in fate. The Stoics also believed that you could resist your fate even though it was inevitable.

While we philosophically note the apparent contradiction, the ancients apparently could use deterministic language and language of free choice without seeing the two as exclusive. If the author of Luke-Acts approached election in this way, then he may not have seen a conflict between a sense that those who came to Christ were predestined to do so and yet that they did so of their own free will.

6. Of all the Gospels, the Gospel of John has the strongest sense of determinism. Here we might consider the possibility that different New Testament authors may have had varying senses of determinism. The community that the Gospel of John first addressed may very well have been a marginalized sect within early Christianity. For example, 1 John 2:19 suggests that they were those left after a split, with the departing group possibly being more affluent (3:17).

The social conditions of John may thus be similar to those of 1 Peter with the audience feeling ostracized and marginalized -- even within the broader Christian community. We see dynamics of ostracism throughout John. For example, John 6:66 pictures many of Jesus' initial followers abandoning him. It is probably no coincidence that in the same chapter Jesus says that no one can come to him unless God first draws them (6:44). 

John 9:22 likely reflects the situation at the time the Gospel was written, where those who confessed Jesus as the Christ could be expelled from the mainstream Jewish synagogue. These social pressures seem to lie not far beneath the surface of John on the whole. Like 1 Peter, they correlate well with a strong sense of election in John.

In John 12, God blinds the eyes of certain Jews and hardens the hearts of Jesus' opponents (12:37-40). Only Jesus' sheep hear his voice (10:26-29). These are those whom God has given Jesus out of the world (17:9).

Nevertheless, we also find significant language of freedom of choice in John. John 3:16 says that "whoever" believes in him will not perish -- an apparent invitation to everyone. John 8:31-32 leaves open the possibility that someone might walk away from Jesus. John 15:6 suggests that our choices can result in God cutting us off of the vine.

Once again, we find conflicting language. Warnings indicate that we have choices to make. But there is also this overarching language of determinism. 

7. Like Luke and 1 Peter, John does not reconcile this conflicting imagery. The two sets of language do not cohere very well. Perhaps the best option, rather than forcing a harmonization philosophically, is first to accept that the ancients at this time did not see a fatal contradiction between the two sets of language. However, on a practical level, all these texts assume that we as individuals must make choices and decisions. 

Against this backdrop, deterministic language seems to perform a different function than prediction. In fact, it is "after the fact" language. How do we know whether someone was predestined? By the choices they make. The language thus affirms divine belonging and value far more than predeterminism.

[1] This insight was especially brought out by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), captured in his posthumous Philosophical Investigations.

[2] J. L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 2nd ed. (Harvard University, 1975).

[3] John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Fortress, 1976), 34-38. 

[4] John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (Anchor Yale Bible, 2000), 109–118.

[5] It should be noted that perhaps the majority of New Testament scholars believe that 2 Peter comes from a different author than 1 Peter, meaning that election language in 2 Peter may or may not be used similarly to the way it is used in 1 Peter.

[6] E.g., 1QH 7.25-27

[7] I had a seminary professor, Dr. Joseph Wang, who ingeniously suggested that this might be a middle voice instead of a passive -- "as many as appointed themselves." However, this seems to be a case of "special pleading," using your intellect to find a way to defend the position you want to be true rather than what is actually the most likely interpretation.

1 Peter 4:7-5:14 (The end is near.)

Last night was the final night in a series of group studies at College Wesleyan Church on 1 Peter. I've posted some notes so far on

1 Peter 1:3-2:10 (aliens and strangers in an oppressive context)
1 Peter 2:11-3:7 (slaves, wives, people in the empire, sit up straight around the bully)
1 Peter 3:8-4:6 (Christ conquering powers and saving the dead)

1. The end is near.
There is clearly a sense in 1 Peter that the sufferings that the church was undergoing were the beginning of the final judgment, beginning with the household of God (4:17). "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" (4:18).

The application, I think, is that we must always live in readiness with the expectation that Christ could return at any time.

Peter says not to be surprised at the sufferings the church was undergoing (4:12). Instead, they should rejoice that they were participating in the sufferings of the Christ (4:13). They should entrust themselves to the Almighty God (4:19).

2. In the meantime...
Some great memory verses in the last part of 1 Peter:

• "Be clear minded and self-controlled so you can pray." (4:7) 
• "Love each other deeply… offer hospitality to each other without grumbling." (4:8-9) 
• "Love covers a multitude of sins." (4:8) 
• Serve as dispensing the grace of God: speaking, serving… (4:10-11).
• Clothe yourselves with humility. 
• Humble yourselves under God’s hand. 
• Cast your cares on him. 
• Be alert—the Devil’s prowling. 
• Resist the Devil… you’re not alone. 
• "After you have suffered a little while, God will restore everything."

3. Insights into the early church
Chapter 5 gives hints, I suspect, of the leadership structure of the earliest church. Peter calls himself an elder writing to elders. I suspect the elders who led these local assemblies were mostly old men. I believe "elder" and "overseer" are pretty much synonymous at this point. So Peter tells young men to be subject to those older men (5:5). They are...

• Not to be greedy, eager to serve. 
• Not to lord it over the church. 
• "Pastors" are to be examples to the flock.
• Chief shepherd will reward them. 
• Peter’s right there with them as a shepherd.

The book ends with some interesting closing greetings:

• Written "through Silas." Most right now think this means that Silas delivered the letter.
• Mark also greets the audience, from Rome, which is code named Babylon.

Notes on 1 Peter 3:8-4:6 (including "naughty" verses)

Last night was the fourth night in a series of group studies at College Wesleyan Church on 1 Peter. I've posted some notes so far on

1 Peter 1:3-2:10 (aliens and strangers in an oppressive context)
1 Peter 2:11-3:7 (slaves, wives, people in the empire, sit up straight around the bully)

The verses last night continued instruction on how to live in a world where the dominant power has it out for you.

1. Don't waste God's time.
It's not the time for "indecency, lusts, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, disgusting things, idolatry" (4:3). The Gentile audience has done enough of that in the past. So now it's time to suffer. The people around them are going to "think it strange" that they don't join in.

I imagine how hard it must be these days to go to some secular colleges and not get wasted all the time. Drinking is just out of control in these colossal wastes of time and money. Send your kids to IWU instead. :-)

2. Christ is our example.
He suffered. Indeed, this righteous one suffered for the unrighteous. So also the audience of 1 Peter has turned from sin and they were suffering (4:1). They should not repay evil for evil or insult for insult to their oppressors, but wish instead a blessing on them (3:9). Sounds like Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

1 Peter quotes Psalm 34, and although the context of the psalm in 1 Peter is not clear, it doesn't seem a coincidence that the psalm gives thanks to the Lord for delivering the psalmist from oppression. So also the audience of 1 Peter can thank God for getting them through a time of suffering.

Against all this background, the original connotations of the "apologetics proof-text" come into view. "Be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (3:15). This verse was not about having all the arguments of C. S. Lewis or William Lane Craig memorized. Anyone who knows me knows that I like rational arguments for faith. They're important to me personally.

But this is a verse about giving witness to Christ when you stand before your persecutors. It's about testimony rather than logical argument. Be prepared to testify that Jesus is your Lord when you stand before Caesar, who is not truly lord.

3. Christ has conquered all evil powers.
After the resurrection, God exalted Jesus at his right hand as Lord of the cosmos. He is far above all angels and authorities (3:22).

Here we come to what I call "naughty verses," verses that are hard to fit into my theology. The first is 3:19: "Christ himself suffered on account of sins... to bring you into the presence of God. Christ was put to death as a human, but made alive by the Spirit. And it was by the Spirit that he went to preach to the spirits in prison... these spirits were disobedient—when God patiently waited during the time of Noah" (CEB).

If you know Jewish literature, it's hard not to think of 1 Enoch here, a book that Jude quotes and to which 2 Peter seems to allude. Given that proximity, it's hard not to hear an allusion to the fallen angels of Genesis 6 in that tradition. I used to get very annoyed at some evangelical scholars at what seemed to me to be cooking the books at this point--using their considerable intellect to dodge what seems a likely conclusion. Let the text say what it seems to say and deal with it in your theology. If inerrancy means twisting the most likely meaning to fit your theology, then it is probably an instrument of falsehood--violating the text to suit your idea of what it should and shouldn't say.

The application stands! In death, Jesus announced his triumph over evil powers! That is the inspired and inerrant point Peter is making, IMO, delivered as all Scripture is in incarnated form. I could of course be wrong, but that is my line of thought as of 7:28 on 10-1-15.

4. Another "naughty verse" is 4:6: "They will have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does" (NRSV).

Again, I poke fun at the NIV here, which inserts the word "now" into the translation to avoid the impression that Jesus is evangelizing the dead. That is a possible interpretation. But I hope I don't make interpretive decisions to massage my theology. Again, a neo-evangelical hangover, IMO.

BTW, the CEB dodges the NRSV's translation to avoid any impression that Peter has a body-spirit dualism: "They were judged as humans according to human standards, they could live by the Spirit according to divine standards." :-)

My interpretation is that Jesus is announcing salvation to the saints of the Old Testament. In other words, we should think of Hebrews 11:39-40: "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect" (NIV). Made alive in spirit, Jesus announced to the dead of the Old Testament that they could now be perfected.

Again, a difficult verse, but that's where I'm at with it.

Notes on 1 Peter (2:11-3:7) = controversy!

For the last three weeks I've been presenting on 1 Peter at College Wesleyan Church. Last week, for example, was on 1 Peter 1:3-2:10. Last night we looked at what are to me the difficult chapters, chaps 2-3.

1. Inevitably, we processed them in the light of America's situation and also Steve Deneff's sermon series that he's doing on being in exile.

Several very interesting thoughts emerged that I wanted to capture before they slipped out of my porous mind. The first is something that I've encountered before in Joel Green's commentary on 1 Peter and now in Abson Joseph's work as well. This is the idea that we are slaves to God but really free when it comes to our oppressors and the powers of the world (2:16).

In a couple key places, 1 Peter uses the Greek middle voice (2:18; 3:1), which can have the connotation of doing something to yourself--"submit yourselves to." In other words, submission in 1 Peter is not about being helplessly enslaved but it is about a free believer choosing to submit him or herself to a master or unbelieving husband as an act of the will, even though those to whom we are submitting are unjust.

So in 2:18 it is the household servant choosing to submit to an unjust master. Then in chapter 3 a wife is willingly submitting to a possibly unbelieving husband.

2. But probably the most generative thoughts of the night were the fact that different books of the Bible speak more powerfully to different times and places. So 1 Peter speaks especially to a situation where it is God's will for us to submit to powers that are oppressive or unjust. We spoke of Joshua as an example of a kind of text that might speak to a time when the church needs to fight and take action.

We used the example of the 1840s before the Civil War in America. That was not a time for Christians to be focusing on 1 Peter but rather a time for them to be reading Joshua.

How do we know what time it is? We only know for sure in hindsight. In Deuteronomy 18:22, we know whether someone is a false prophet by whether their prophecy comes true. In the same way, we will know whether the "fighters" in the church or the "submitters" are right in time.

I also suggested that if the Spirit is in believers, then we might look for trends in the church. My Facebook feed is divided over Kim Davis. I think she should have submitted. Others think she should fight. The church is divided. Which way is the Church moving? In hindsight we may have better clarity on who the true and who the "false prophets" were.

3. Another thought Steve Deneff had was that sometimes God has a 1 Peter role for one person and a Joshua role for another person, even in the same time. I remembered what someone in an African-American class in Indy said to me about the Civil Rights struggle. He believed that African-Americans would not have won that struggle if there had not been both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, that it took both the fighters and the submitters for culture to change.

It was an interesting thought that I won't pursue further, but unfortunately it does seem sometimes that it takes a slap in the face to get the dominant culture's attention when it is unthinkingly oppressing a minority.

4. I don't remember who first suggested that the inspiration of Scripture is best thought of not as one voice for all times but as a collection of voices, some of which speak more powerfully in some times and places than others. The miracle is that this diverse collection of text stands ready to speak poignantly even though the situations of history can vary drastically.

The unreflective reader does not realize that he or she is focusing on different passages than other Christians have at other times. They do not realize that 1 Peter is speaking more poignantly to them than Joshua at that time. The unreflective reader does not realize that he or she is hearing certain passages differently than others have heard them in other times and places.

But this is the miracle of inspiration, not that all the books say the same thing, but that they say different things, all of which speak directly at some time.

So are we living in the days of 1 Peter or the days of Joshua?

Notes on 1 Peter (1:3-2:10)

1. Last night was the second of five nights on 1 Peter at College Wesleyan. Here was the confusing background diagram I drew:

The idea is that 1 Peter sees the current situation of the churches to which it is addressed as one of suffering and judgment. Peter looks forward to the coming revelation of Jesus Christ at his return to earth from heaven. That is the time of salvation (Salvation in 1 Peter, as in Paul, is a future event).

The inheritance for which they wait is on lay-away in heaven. It is kept in heaven for the time of Christ's return. They are being guarded as they wait for it. At that point their present sufferings will become glories.

2. But at present, they feel like foreigners in a hostile land. They are sojourning in fear (1:17). They are being purified through suffering. They are being tried like gold in a fire.

As an aside, it seems beyond reasonable doubt to me that the audience is primarily Gentile. A verse like 1:18, which calls their past a "foolish way of life handed down from your forefathers" makes no sense at all of a Jewish background, unless one doesn't understand that Judaism and Christianity were not yet two distinct religions. It is completely anachronistic to think that Peter would say that to Jews.

[Insert rant here about the sad state of biblical education in America right now from my perspective. It's not going to get better any time soon, IMO.]

I picture a Christianity that feels alone and isolated. I picture a Christianity that wonders where God is. It doesn't feel like he's around.

3. In this context, they are to be holy (1:16). In 1 Peter, this is not just being set apart, but implies a moral purity as well. It involves self-control (1:13). It involves pure love for others (1:22). They are to get rid of malice and hypocrisy (2:1).

There is also language that pictures the audience as a replacement temple. If Hebrews was written to Rome and 1 Peter was written from Rome, I muse in a forthcoming book if 1 Peter might have been influenced by Hebrews. Not something I want to die for, though.

So these Gentile believers are a holy priesthood who offer spiritual sacrifices (2:5, 9). They are a holy nation (2:9). If Roman oppression of Israel is part of the background of 1 Peter, this latter statement would also pop. Alas, there could be a richness here that our simple schemes won't let us explore.

Back to reading Augustine...

Notes on 1 Peter (1)

Last week I began a Bible study at College Wesleyan on 1 Peter. I don't have time to flesh it out but here are some of my notes from the first week:

• The greeting tells us this letter is being written to a cross-section of believers scattered throughout what is modern-day Turkey. It has a very large audience.
• 1 Peter 5:13 has the key for me to 1 Peter. It is being written "in Babylon." This is not the literal Babylon but a code word for Rome. It suggests that, whenever the letter was written, Rome has become a major oppressor of the Jews. Of course Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD70, just as Babylon did in 586BC.
• "Beloved, I urge you as foreigners and aliens, stay away from fleshly desires, which war against your soul, having such a good way of life among the Gentiles that, even though they accuse you as a wrongdoer [now], they might glorify God on the Day of Oversight as they see your good works [then in retrospect]” (2:11-12, NRSV).
• The audience do not see themselves as belonging in the Roman empire. Rather, the empire is a foreign context. 1 Peter is a defensive strategy, how to live in hostile territory when your "host" is watching you and ready to pounce.
• “For it is time for The Judgment to begin with the with the household of God. And if it is first with us, what will the end of those who are disobeying the gospel of God?” (4:17)
• Both the church and the Jews are experiencing hard times. It won't end here.

9.4 A Soul in a Body, Part 3

This is the third part of a second in a chapter called "What is a Human Being?" This section is called A Soul in a Body and the previous parts of the section are

Part 1
Part 2

And now the section continues...
__________
...Nevertheless, a number of New Testament authors do seem to use either “soul” or more often “spirit” in relation to a part inside us that is separable from our bodies. In 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 Paul is unsure whether he has had an “out of the body” experience or not. Paul so strongly assumes that we will have a resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 that it is probably hard for him to imagine life without a body. [1] But he seems at least open to the possibility in 2 Corinthians 12. Philippians 1:23 also seems to imply continued existence at death in heaven in some way, prior to the resurrection (cf. Phil. 3:11). Revelation 6:9 speaks of the “souls” under the altar of heaven. These are individuals who were martyred, perhaps beheaded, while they were alive (Rev. 20:4). They apparently receive resurrection bodies and return to the living at the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6).

Because the Bible gives us varied pictures of human psychology and of the afterlife, we probably should not consider any of these pictures absolute. Clearly the New Testament teaches that believers will continue to exist in eternity, and several passages even point to continued existence immediately at death. The Gospel of Luke, for example, has its Parable of the Rich Man, who awakes in torment after death. His brothers are still alive, so he has not awakened after the resurrection. [2] He has not risen from the dead like Jesus, for Abraham denies him that possibility (Luke 16:31). He is thus conscious in an “intermediate state” between death and resurrection. But the rich man does not apparently have a resurrection body—a body that Luke pictures having flesh and bones (cf. Luke 24:39). We should probably infer the same state for Jesus and the thief on the cross between their deaths and resurrection (cf. Luke 23:43).

But it is not clear to what extent these are pictures, put in the categories of the ancients so that the original audiences of these texts could understand them. The books of the Bible give us differing images of human make-up and the particulars of the afterlife. These things relate to another world, another dimension, another universe. And just as Christians have not generally speculated what God is made of in His substance, what “Spirit” really is, probably we should sit loosely to our language of soul and spirit as pictures and metaphors of something that we probably could not literally understand while we are this side of death...

[1] Some (but not most) scholars even suggest that Paul underwent a development on his thinking on this subject. They suggest that Paul started in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 with a strong sense that we sleep until a point at the end of history where we are re-embodiment as part of the resurrection. Then they suggest that he switched to see us being re-embodied immediately at death in 2 Corinthians 5. Perhaps the most famous exponent of this interpretation was F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free

[2] I have often heard the ingenious suggestion that eternity is outside the time of our current universe and thus that the rich man could have been raised at the resurrection and still be “now” in relation to human time. He would thus be raised much later in regard to human time, but resurrected already in relation to otherworldly time. This suggestion is ingenious, but hardly something that the author of Luke would have been thinking.

Happy Entrails...

I was looking this morning at a Greek word in 1 Peter 3:8--eusplanchnos. You've heard of "happy trails"? I think a fine translation of this word would be "happly entrails." :-)

5 Elements of Conversion (Joel Green on 1 Peter)

I have so many possible things to post today my head is spinning. Here is a quick and dirty one, about all I can justify this morning:

Working through Green's 1 Peter commentary with a class. Here are five elements of conversion he mentions in his treatment of 1:22-2:3 (1 Peter [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 50-51):

1. In antiquity, it might refer both to event and to process and connote either transition from one religion to another or moving deeper into one's own religion.

2. Conversion entails autobiographical reconstruction--reformulation of who you think you are.

3. Conversion is a profoundly social act with immediate and far reaching social consequences.

4. Conversion involves incorporation into a new community with its distinguishing practices.

5. Conversion involves the adoption of a new symbolic universe, the valid one, a new way of looking at the world. Green elsewhere uses language of the conversion of the imagination (the title of a collection by Richard Hays, reminds us of Charles Taylor's social imaginary, taken over by James Smith in Desiring the Kingdom). Green defines the imagination in this context as, "a basic image-schematic capacity for ordering our experience" (26).

Explanatory Notes: 1 Peter 1:1

Alas, more than once I intended to do at least a little more in James, but the exam has come and gone and 1 Peter is nigh. So James goes into the queue of unfinished notes to be finished another day. Here is 1 Peter 1:1
__________
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to chosen aliens of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
The Peter in question is certainly Simon Peter, the disciple. We do of course encounter the same questions of authorship with 1 Peter that we do the other General Epistles. How likely is it that a Galilean fisherman would write this well in Greek? The thought at some points, such as even the designation of Peter as "an apostle of Jesus Christ," seems very much like Paul's letters. Indeed, the mention of Silas in 5:12 is a little surprising, since Silas was Paul's coworker rather than Peter's.

Even more striking is the thinly veiled reference to Rome as "Babylon" in 5:13. We know of other Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem who connected Rome with Babylon. Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, its temple, and took its intelligensia captive. In AD70 Rome destroyed Jerusalem, its temple, and took its intelligensia back to Rome where they were crucified. It is thus no suprise that Revelation and the Sibylline Oracles use Babylon as a code word for Rome.

But according to tradition, Peter died at the hands of Nero, who committed suicide in AD68. If Jews did not call Rome "Babylon" until after the destruction of Jerusalem, then either Peter did not write 1 Peter as we have it or, as some suggest, it might have literally been written from Babylon. It is of course possible that Jews saw the writing on the wall well before Rome actually destroyed Jerusalem. The Jewish War began in AD66, two years before Nero died. If we think of Peter as the literal author, perhaps we should date 1 Peter to the years AD66-68.

The statement that Peter wrote this letter in some way "through Silas" has brought its own debates (5:12). Are we perhaps to think of Silas as the one who delivered this letter to its varied destinations throughout Asia Minor? Or perhaps Silas helped translate or even formulate Peter's basic thoughts in Greek for him. If Silas in some way was a co-writer in a more significant way than usual, that would explain some of the apparent similarities to Paul's thought. Finally, if 1 Peter was pseudonymous--written under the authority of Peter's name after his death to convey his voice to a later context--then one might suggest that perhaps it was Silas himself who composed the letter in toto.

Peter identifies the audience as "chosen aliens of the Diaspora." Since the audience likely consisted primarily of Gentiles (cf. 2:10), the reference to the Diaspora would seem to be slightly figurative, except insofar as the audience does seem spread out over the rather large region of Asia Minor: Pontus at the top on the Black Sea, Galatia up and down the middle, Cappadocia to the east of Galatia and north of Paul's native Cilicia, Asia on the western end, and Bithynia to the northwest. Paul ministered at one point or another in many of these regions, except we have no record of him in Pontus or Bithynia.

The idea that the audience is "chosen" or "elect" is a theme that appears throughout 1 Peter. It is probably important not to read later understandings of election into such statements. In the mystery of God, only a small percentage of the Mediterranean world believed in Jesus as messiah at the time, and it was natural for this minority to recognize themselves as a special group out of everyone in the world. Such references implied that they stood in a special relationship with God. They probably did not imply that God had decided not to save those who did not believe or that those who currently believed were destined to be saved no matter what. It was "phenomenological" language, language that described how things appeared, language that recognized the special status of believers within the broader, unbelieving world without the later sense of a rigid underlying cause and effect on God's part.

The reference to the audience as "aliens," "strangers," "foreigners," has also given rise to a good deal of speculation. For example, some think that the audience were literally exiles for whom Asia Minor was not their native homeland. Such studies are very edifying in their modern application, and they accurately describe the social situation of a certain group within the ancient world.

However, we find this suggestion highly implausible when it comes to the original audience of 1 Peter, not least because Peter speaks of the audience of aliens in the context of abstaining from fleshly desires (2:11). Such language puts such imagery into a spiritual context (cf. Heb. 11:13-16). Although the NIV adds the words "in the world" to this verse (they're not there in Greek), the addition would seem to capture well the most likely sense. The audience are "aliens" in the world because they belong to a different kingdom, a spiritual rather than a fleshly one.

Explanatory Notes: 1 Peter 2:11-17

I started this on Sunday since I preached on the text. Since I'm also teaching 1 Peter this Fall, it was hard to resist. Thought I'd finish it today.
_________
2:11 Beloved, I urge [you] as aliens and foreigners, to abstain from fleshly desires, which are warring against the soul,
With this verse 1 Peter begins a new section of the letter, a section that we believe continues through 4:11. This section generally has to do with living good lives in a society that is hostile toward the people of God. In general, we should read all of 1 Peter against the understanding that judgment has begun with the house of God (4:17) and will eventually lead to judgment on the rest of the world.

We have already discussed the description of the audience as "foreigners" in 1:1, and they were also called "aliens" in 1:17. The idea again is of someone who is not native or indigenous to a particular place, someone who is not a citizen of a location. There are connotations of being in the minority, of being in the "out" group. One always has a sense of not truly belonging because your true home is elsewhere. In the next verse, 1 Peter will distinguish the audience from the Gentiles, which adds an additional layer of foreignness, ironically despite the fact that most of the audience was probably Gentile by birth!

Since 1 Peter finishes the thought by telling the audience to refrain from giving in to the desires of the flesh, it would seem that the body (in its current weak state in relation to the power of Sin) is part of what is meant by being aliens and foreigners. Many interpreters have difficulty with this suggestion, as we alluded back in 1:1. But the idea that "in the body" we are in some ways in a context foreign to our truly "spiritual" identity would seem to be part of the imagery of 1 Peter. Such an understanding renders the train of thought here most intelligible and need not be forced further into some Gnostic or Platonic framework.

The similarity to Pauline thought here is striking. Indeed, it is at the very least intriguing to think that the flesh-spirit dichotomy would roll from Peter's categories as naturally as it did from Paul's. Certainly we do not have enough evidence to say how widespread such ways of thinking were among the early Christians. The similarity to Paul's categories does fit nicely with our hunch that Silas had as much to do with the writing of 1 Peter as Peter himself (cf. 1 Pet. 5:12).

Although it may not seem so at first, mention of "soul" is somewhat ambiguous. The idea of an immaterial soul largely arose in the 1600s. The idea of a detachable soul existed at the time of the New Testament, but the New Testament generally thinks more of a separable spirit. And those few places where the New Testament might refer to a separable soul are not actually very clear.

For example, 1 Peter 3:20 uses the word soul in its more normal Hebrew sense of a whole living person. Although nothing would keep this letter from using the same word in different ways, the usage later in the letter pushes us at least to try to understand the soul in 2:11 in reference to one's life. Fleshly passions war against one's life.

On the other hand, the use here does not seem quite the same as in 3:20. The mention of fleshly desires and alienation from one's true identity at least seem to fit better with the soul here as some part of a person. And the sense that we have an "inner person" in 3:4, along with the body-spirit dualism of 3:18-19, perhaps tip the scales toward soul here having to do with an inner, spiritual part of a person in some way.

2:12 ... having your good conduct among the Gentiles, so that--though they are slandering you as wrongdoers--looking on your good works, they might glorify God on the Day of Oversight.
This in our opinion is the key verse of the section that goes from 2:11 to 4:11. The instructions that follow are instructions on how slaves, wives, and those under Roman rule in general, might live respectable first century lives. The strategy is one of endurance under suffering, not one that looks to change the social structures of society. As in most of Paul's writings, there seems to be an underlying expectation that the Lord will return soon. 1 Peter takes no thought for changing social institutions but assumes them.

Given that the primary audience of 1 Peter would seem to be Gentile, it is striking that the audience is addressed as non-Gentiles. They are "foreigners" among Gentiles, with the connotation that they are no longer such. As 1:10 has indicated, they have gone from not being in the people of God to being in the people of God. Although it is not said that they have become a part of Israel, this is the underlying connotation. 1 Peter knows nothing of Christians as some "third race."

We best understand the thought assumptions of 1 Peter, then, if we think of the Gentile audience as transplants into the people of God in some sense. At the same time, this assumption comes through very weakly, far more weakly than in Paul's writings. While we are prone to miss this fact, it is a striking feature of the letter, especially if we are hearing Peter in his natural categories. On the other hand, it might fit better with a Silas as principal composer (5:12), especially if he were a Diaspora Jew who was raised with a much weaker sense of his Jewish identity.

As we have already seen, 1 Peter pictures widespread hostility in Asia Minor toward believers. And as we have mentioned, it is hard to infer concretely what accusations of wrongdoing or evildoing might have applied. The immediate mention of human authorities, including the empire, might suggest that Christians were perceived to be politically subversive. Certainly confessing a supreme Lord and king who was not Caesar would seem to fall into that category.

The later the writing of 1 Peter, the more likely that Christian Jews might be seen as politically subversive. It would be anachronistic, however, to think that the Roman Empire had some standing policy about Christianity being illegal. This was not even the case in the early second century. There was no official list of legal religions, nor was there a hard and fast understanding that Judaism was a religio licita, a "legal religion." Any persecution of Christians was situational and cultural, not official or empire wide.

The fact that 1 Peter goes on to give advice about slaves and wives bespeaks the possibility of persecution based on a sense that Christianity was socially subversive. Perhaps letters like Colossians, 1 Peter, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy all belong to a layer of early Christian tradition where an initial social freedom was undergoing a certain retrenchment because of the resultant social turmoil.

1 Peter does not anticipate that the surrounding society will be won over by good conduct. Rather, it is on the "Day of Overseeing," the day of judgment, that they will have to admit that they had no legitimate basis for accusation. If they follow 1 Peter's admonition, Christians will have respected all human authority; slaves will have submitted to their masters, and first century women will have obeyed their husbands.

2:13-14 Be subject to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the king as ruler, or to governors as being sent by Him for the punishment of wrongdoers and for praise of those who do good,
Part of the "live good lives" theme is a life that gives no legitimate basis for emperors or governors to find cause for concern in Christians. It is quite possible that Paul has already died before Nero by the time these words were written, as well as that the persecution of Christians in Rome around 64-65 had already taken place. If 1 Peter were pseudonymous, written after Peter's death, then we would even have the ironic situation where Peter himself was put to death by the emperor. Mention of "Babylon" in 5:13 would then evoke the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome as well.

Whatever the answers to these questions, the admonitions to be good people under Roman rule have a richness because no Christian would have suffered under the illusion that it was always just and fair. 1 Peter urges submission to human authorities who do not as people merit such submission. At the same time, this instruction is still arguably part of the defensive strategy to fly as much as possible below the radar of hostile powers. The manner of Acts' presentation arguably also flows from this concern for Christians not to be seen as troublemakers or subversive.

These verses evoke a picture of government as one of rule to maintain social order (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). Those who do wrong, understood in general terms with which most in society would agree, must be restrained. Those who do right, again, apparently based on common understanding, should be rewarded. 1 Peter reinforces this kind of general sense of right and wrong without any apparent reference to the Jewish Law at this point.

2:15 ... because the will of God is thus: for those who do good to muzzle the ignorance of foolish people.
Such muzzling is not understood as the active pursuit of justice by God's people. Human authorities outside the household of God enact justice and reward. Rather, the message of this section seems more "passive aggressive." Those who ignorantly malign Christians will be shown to be ignorant because the good living of such believers will be beyond reproach. The good lives they live among the nations will "muzzle" the foolish slander of their detractors--if not in this life, on the Day of Overseeing.

2:16-17 As free individuals yet not using the freedom as a cover for wickedness, but as slaves of God, honor all people. Love the family [of Christian brothers and sisters]. Be fearing of God. Honor the king.
Wickedness and fleshly desires again in this section seem to be connected directly with matters of social order. Striking familiar Pauline themes, the audience is to live as free without that freedom leading to evil action (cf. Gal. 5:13). The difference from Paul is the fact that such statements do not engage the Jewish Law as Paul's do. This would be quite striking if we were only hearing Peter's voice in his most natural categories, since from all appearances he was more "conservative" than Paul on such matters. On the other hand, we might expect such an abstracted Paul from a Silas (cf. 5:12), whose categories were perhaps less concretely enmeshed in Palestinian Jewish thought.

Living as slaves of God ironically means to honor human authorities. It means to show respect for all people, even if they are unbelievers, and of course it implies loving the family of God. Once again, the injunction to honor the king is deeply ironic and/or profound, given that it was the emperor Nero who likely had Peter crucified. If 1 Peter were written after Peter's death, the implication of the injunction would be deeply profound. On the other hand, one might argue that 1 Peter would not so commend emperors as punishers of those who do wrong if in fact Peter had died at the hands of the emperor.

Sermon Starters: "Sticky Christians"

Preaching tomorrow. Here are some notes others can improve on, if they feel led.

[Now it was yesterday. Here's the podcast if you're interested in listening]

Supporting Text: Genesis 41:1-16
Key Text: 1 Peter 2:11-17

Introduction

• People like me shouldn't be allowed to own houses.
• I don't mean that Christians should be irritating (several church members mentioned by name as examples... just kidding ;-).
• Larry Osborne's Sticky Church
• God made Joseph a sticky person of God.
• Key Text: "Live such good lives among the nations that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us" (mostly TNIV).

1. Not Everyone Sticks

• Context of 1 Peter: "though they accuse you"
• 3:15-16, not about apologetics but testifying to faith while on trial
• Scot McKnight: a "defensive strategy"
• Be careful about applying the specifics of 1 Peter to today.
• 1 Peter 4:17-19--judgment begun with the household of God...
• 1 Peter--slave masters who don't stick; husbands who don't stick
• Not everyone will stick, and it's a mystery why some do and some don't.
• Movies where it doesn't all work out...
• Our job is to be faithful.

2. Abstain from Sticky Wickets

• What in the world is a sticky wicket?
• "Abstain from fleshly desires" (2:11)
• DeNeff has been preaching on this topic, so I'd better not say much.
• Cover the pitch at night so it doesn't get wet in the first place (stay out of sticky situations)
• KJV of 1 Thess. 5:22 "abstain from all appearance of evil"--the old timers were wrong on the meaning of the verse but mostly right in the application--don't play with fire
• Pray!
• Practice Batting (just say no)
• Reset the wicket
• Practice Bowling (Virtue as a habit, practicing the virtue--footnotes to DeNeff)

3. How to Be Sticky

• Respect everyone (you know the drill)
• Love fellow believers (not necessarily "like")
• Fear God
• Submit to human authority (including the emperor)
• This last admonition is all the more striking since Peter died at the hands of the emperor.
• Pray!
• Practice batting
• Reset the wicket
• Practice bowling

4. Conclusion

• Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt
• What am I going to do about it?

Final Seland Review #5

And now, the final installment of my review of Torrey Seland's book, Strangers in the Light.


Chapter 4: The Moderate Life of the Christian Paroikoi: A Philonic Reading of 1 Pet. 2:11
Torrey delivered a version of this chapter first as a paper at a "The New Testament and Philo" conference in Eisenach in 2003. In this chapter Seland's ideal Philonic reader returns, this time to focus on the verse in 1 Peter of greatest interest to Torrey, namely, 1 Peter 2:11. How would a Philonic reader understand this verse?

Part 1
Seland thus embarks in the first part of the chapter on a journey to hone in on Philo's use of terms like παροικος and παρεπιδημος, as well as Philo's understanding of the soul. Eduard Schweizer referred to 1 Peter 2:11 as "the most strongly Hellenised ψυχη passage in the NT" (117). The reason is that the soul is here put into direct opposition to "fleshly desires" in a way characteristic of Platonic rather than OT thought.

Unsurprisingly, Philo's main sense of sojourning, of being a παροικος, has to do with the wise person being a sojourner in a physical body (e.g., Her. 267-68). Similarly, the person on a path to wisdom sojourns in the "basic studies" of a Greek education before moving on to the Law of Moses (e.g., Cong. 22).

Seland summarizes Philo's sense of the wise man as a resident alien with three basic connotations: 1) with respect to God, for the world is his, 2) with respect to the elementary studies in contrast to the Law of Moses, and 3) life of the soul in a body.

With regard to the soul, ψυχη, Seland presents a quick overview of Philo's understanding. The human soul has both a rational and irrational part. The soul's soul is the spirit (e.g. Her. 55) or the mind (Leg. 1.39). Philo can also look at the soul from a different perspective in which it consists of the mind, the spirited part, and the passions, each assigned a part of the anatomy (head, chest, abdomen).

Seland concludes by pointing out the well known difference between the anthropology of the Hebrew Bible and that of the Greek/Hellenistic philosophers. "In the Hebrew Bible, a human being does not have a soul; s/he is a soul" (127). Most NT texts maintain this sense of "soul" in the Jewish Scriptures as a reference to an entire living being.

Part 2
Torrey now runs through various words and phrases in 1 Peter 2:11 asking how a Philonic reader would likely understand them.

"aliens and exiles"
A Philonic reader would likely understand sojourning here in the third Philonic sense we mentioned above. We are strangers in this world in contrast to our true home in the heavenly world.

"to abstain from fleshly desires that war against the soul"
Eduard Schweizer has pointed out that this verse is the only place in the NT where the soul stands in antithesis to "flesh" (137). Seland briefly summarizes Philo's sense of embodiment (138-139). First, Philo sees both body and soul as created by God (I think Seland may slightly overvaluates the body in Philo here a little). Second, the body is at best a necessary evil (e.g., Leg. 3.72-73; more accurate). Third, Philo has a mostly negative view of flesh in his writings.

"desires"
Here Seland turns to Philo's explanations of the tenth commandment, where he finds desire to be the most troublesome of all the passions, which belong to the irrational part of the soul. On the one hand, Philo recognizes the inevitability of the passions. He is thus more akin to Aristotle than to the Stoics on this score. The passions must be controlled by reason (141).

Seland concludes that a Philonic reader would have no problem seeing similar issues being addressed in 1 Peter 2:11. Seland hints that he does not see this verse as a reference to our brief sojourn in the body before our souls return to heaven (145). But a Philonic reader likely would read it in this way.

Here endeth the reading. Thanks to Torrey Seland for a stimulating book. I have gained much from reading it.

Seland Review, #4

Fourth installment.

Chapter 2: παροικος και παρεπιδημος: Proselyte Characterizations in 1 Peter?
This chapter appeared in 2001 in the Bulletin for Biblical Research. Seland gives the basic thesis of the chapter as follows: "In some Diaspora Jewish works, the terms παροικος and παρεπιδημος belong to the semantic field 'proselyte/proselytism'" (40). He does not hereby mean that the audience had literally been proselytes to Judaism prior to becoming Christians (van Unnik's position). Rather, drawing on Lakoff and Johnson, the social world of proselytes provides the "source domain" of the terms, which are then applied in the "target domain" of Petrine Christians. I believe Seland considers this line of thought to be the signature contribution to scholarship of the book as a whole.

Part 1
In good fashion, the first part of the chapter runs through the primary suggestions in play about the social location of the audience. van Unnik believed the audience had literally been proselytes to Judaism before becoming Christians (42-44). Klaus Berger does not believe they were literally proselytes, but sees their situation as similar to that of Jewish proselytes (44).

Of course the best known social theory in relation to 1 Peter is that of John Elliott, who has argued that the audience had literally been resident aliens in the regions of the letter before they had become Christians (44-46). Frankly, this thesis and its impact boggle my mind. Are we really to suppose that there was such a well defined group of Christian visitors or literal exiles in this entire region for an author to single out the group in a letter of this proportion?

Seland points to several features that militate against Elliott's hypothesis (62). For example, 1:17 suggests that their time of exile coincides with their time of waiting for salvation. 4:3 similarly hints that they were not in the same situation prior to becoming Christians. Finally, the use of ως in 2:11 points to a more metaphorical sense to the terms "aliens" and "exiles."

Seland clearly favors a more metaphorical understanding, although not the traditional metaphor of Christians as pilgrims on earth awaiting a home in heaven. Others who have taken a more nuanced metaphorical understanding include Troy Martin, who sees the Diaspora as the controlling metaphor, and Reinhard Feldmeier, who sees the people of Israel as the dominant one.

To move forward, Seland then takes a moment to present Lakoff and Johnson's basic categorization of metaphors (50-51), concluding that language of the audience as "aliens" and "strangers" constitute a "structural metaphor." The social situation of the audience is metaphorically "structured" like the social situation of proselytes to Judaism.

Part 2
In the second part of the essay, Torrey explores background literature in the Hebrew Bible, LXX, and Philo. In the Hebrew Bible, he is interested in the expression גר ותושב, of which παροικος is the usual translation (52-56). Indeed, on 10 occasions the Hebrew phrase is translated as παροικος και παρεπιδημος. Citing a number of places where these terms seem interchangeable with the term προσηλυτος, his basic conclusion is that "παροικος and παρεπιδημος are proselyte-related terms" (56).

In Philo, Seland finds a "conceptual closeness of strangers and proselytes" (59). The Hebrew Bible describes Abraham as a גר ותושב, which the LXX renders παροικος και παρεπιδημος, as in 1 Peter 2:11. Yet Philo considers Abraham the model of a proselyte to the true God, who departs from the idols of Chaldea for the one God (e.g., Virt. 219).

I will confess already that I do not find this evidence compelling toward the interpretation of 1 Peter at this point. Seland has only demonstrated that there is a conceptual overlap between the three terms παροικος, παρεπιδημος, and προσηλυτος. The Hebrew is irrelevant to the interpretation of 1 Peter except insofar as it might illuminate the way the author of 1 Peter is likely to have understood these terms.

But all this shows is that these terms could be used in relation to proselytes. Seland has not even claimed that such was the primary connotation of the terms. Even in Philo, we must distinguish between Abraham as a type of the proselyte and Abraham as a stranger in the land. These are two distinct conceptualizations of Abraham, even if they are analogous.

Part 3
In the final part of the chapter, Seland suggests that several passages in 1 Peter "should be read against the background of Diaspora-Jewish descriptions of proselytes" (61). In itself, this thesis is fair enough. For example, the audience has been "called out of darkness into astonishing light" (2:9). Certainly this is proselyte language. Indeed, it seems likely enough that the audience should be seen as "converts" as "proselytes" to Christian Judaism (e.g., 4:3).

However, Seland is never able to connect the dots between this general truth and the author's use of the terms παροικος and παρεπιδημος in 2:11. The remainder of the chapter plausibly confirms that the audience have converted, that they are ostracized from their former kinsmen in the way proselytes are (71). Their new identity involves a new, fictive kinship with an emphasis on brotherly love (74-77).

But he never closes the deal on the connection between this broader sense of the audience as converts to Christian Judaism and the specific meaning of 2:11. The most likely background of the expression παροικος και παρεπιδημος is Psalm 39:12 (LXX 38:12). The Septuagintal context gives us no reason to connect this comment to proselytism, and even Seland's Philonic reader would likely have allegorized the verse in relation to our soul's sojourn in the body.

One more entry...

Seland Review #3

Third installment.

Chapter 5: "Conduct Yourselves Honorably Among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12), Acculturation and Assimilation in 1 Peter
Seland read this paper in Edinburgh in 1998, and so it is the second essay of the book taken in chronological order. I personally found this chapter the most interesting and helpful of all.

In this chapter, Torrey addresses the question of the degree to which the author of 1 Peter intends for the audience to be assimilated to its non-Christian environment. His thesis is three fold (148). First, he does not believe the terms acculturation and assimilation have been used thus far to great advantage in analyzing the social strategies of 1 Peter. Secondly, those studies that have used these terms in relation to 1 Peter have not tapped into the extensive use of them in the social sciences.

Finally, he argues that they apply to the Christians of 1 Peter as "first generation Christians ... still in a process of being socialized into the Christian world view." Torrey suggests they are in somewhat of a "liminal" situation as newly converted Christians. As such, he sets out to review key literature on 1 Peter in relation to its social situation, to dip into relevant social scientific research on acculturation and assimilation, and then apply these findings to 1 Peter.

Part 1
Seland's review of relevant New Testament research leads him to three key players, namely, David Balch, John Elliott, and John Barclay. Balch's work focused primarily on the household codes of 1 Peter, and his basic thesis is that "such codes were used in a apologetic and legitimating way in Graeco-Roman sources" (150). Balch--at least in his earlier work--characterizes such a purpose as assimilation. The audience of 1 Peter is being told to integrate themselves into society.

Elliott disagrees. The fact that the letter calls for Christians to separate from the world, as well as its missionary emphases, indicate for him that the Petrine house codes are discouraging assimilation for the purpose of avoiding suffering. Seland's critique of both is that neither use the terms assimilation and accommodation with the precision of the social sciences.

Barclay, on the other hand, is more precise in his terms, although his well known work, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora does not address 1 Peter. Barclay distinguishes three terms. First, Barclay uses the word assimilation in reference to the category of social interaction and the adoption of social practices from one's environment. Acculturation then is used in relation to broader cultural features like the use of the same language. Finally, accommodation has to do with the degree to which acculturation takes place, the level of separateness that either is or is not maintained.

In the end, Seland does not find this typology very helpful. He does not find Barclay's distinction between assimilation and acculturation very clear. Further, Barclay's nomenclature does not mesh well with the social scientific use of these terms.

Part 2
And so Seland embarks next on an exploration of recent research in the social sciences on acculturation and assimilation (156-66). His first stop is B. S. Heisler, whose work analyzes the history of research on this topic in three stages. She dubs research up until the late 60's the "classical period." In this period, the process of assimilation was viewed as a one way process ending in complete assimilation.

Heisler dubs the second period the "modern" period, beginning in the seventies. In this period research focused more on conflict, particularly long term conflict, and less on equilibrium. The third period is the "post-modern period," of recent origin (which given the date of this article would be the 1990's). Here we find the expectation of multicultural societies and ethnic pluralisms (158).

Seland mentions several other sources from which one might construct a model of acculturation/assimilation appropriate for 1 Peter. These include the fields of social psychology and communication research. Finally, he draws definitions of acculturation and assimilation from the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (160).

acculturation: "those changes set in motion by the coming together of societies with different cultural traditions."

Seland finds this statement in the article even more helpful: "Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which results [sic] when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups."

assimilation: "a process in which persons of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds come to interact, free of these constraints, in the life of the larger society."

After all this background, Seland ultimately turns to Milton Gordon's 1964 model (from the so called classical period of such research) with a few caveats. The main caveat is a warning that Gordon was wrongly "deterministic" in his sense of inevitability to the process of assimilation. Adjustment of two groups to each other is not the only option.

Gordon's model breaks down several different categories of assimilation:

1. cultural or behavioral assimilation (=acculturation)--fitting in with the host culture in a most basic way (presumably things like learning the language, getting the appropriate documents, etc...)

2. structural assimilation--participating in the clubs, institutions, etc. in large numbers. Gordon believed that once structural assimilation had taken place, all the forms of assimilation below would inevitably follow.

3. marital assimilation (intermarriage)
4. identificational assimilation (identity by way of host society)
5. attitude receptional assimilation (no prejudice toward immigrants)
6. behavior receptional assimilation (no discrimination toward immigrants)
7. civic assimilation (absence of power conflict)

John Berry, in 1980, built on Gordon's categories by posing two questions: 1) does the immigrant group wish to maintain its distinct cultural identity and 2) does the immigrant group wish good relationships with the host culture (163-164)? The result are four basic relationships to the broader culture:

1. If the immigrant group does not want to maintain a distinct identity and does want good relationships with the host culture, the result is assimilation.

2. If the immigrant group does want to maintain a distinct identity yet also wants good relationships with the host culture, the result is integration.

3. If the immigrant group does want to maintain a distinct identity yet does not want good relationships with the host culture, the result is separation.

4. Finally, if the immigrant group does not want to maintain a distinct identity and at the same time does not care about good relationships with the host culture, the result is marginalization.

Part 3
The final part of the chapter then takes all of the preceding processing of social scientific theory and attempts to use it in relation to 1 Peter. Here we arrive at one of Seland's contributions to the Balch/Elliott debate. The question is not really one of assimilation to Greco-Roman culture, as this is the cultural background of the likely Gentile audience (169-170). The question is that of the assimilation of the audience "to the (still developing) Christian system of cult, beliefs, ethos and symbols" (168). So in relation to the host culture, the question is best put as, "How much did he, by his letter, intend his readers to retain of that culture?" (173).

First, Seland argues that they are first generation Christians, "still in need of further acculturation/assimilation into the Christian system" (169). He is surely more correct than not in the light of statements such as we find in 1 Peter 1:14 and 4:3. However, we remember how large an area 1 Peter addresses and are careful not to presume an audience of any monolithic kind. They are primarily Gentile, and it is early enough in the Christian movement for the author to presume that the majority converted from paganism.

They are in a precarious social location. Here Torrey mentions briefly what he discusses more thoroughly in chapter 2. John Elliott is once again his requisite dialog partner. On the one hand, he agrees with Elliott that the phrase "aliens and exiles" in 1 Peter 2:11 does not refer to exile from heaven, as if the audience is on a heavenly pilgrimage (171).

Yet he also finds unconvincing Elliott's sense that they were strangers to these regions even before they converted. We will discuss this thesis in the next post as we review chapter 2. I am also unconvinced of Elliott's thesis and remain puzzled that commentators like Paul Achtemeier and Scot McKnight have followed Elliott on this issue.

At the same time, I'm still struggling with Seland's signature idea that this language in 1 Peter evokes connotations of proselyte language (more when we come to chapter 2). Seland is spot on when it comes to the audience being "proselytes" to Christian Judaism. But I'm having trouble seeing that the specific terms "aliens and exiles" carried those overtones. Indeed, I don't think it is safe at all to assume that the audience, especially in such a vast area, are relatively new converts. ***coming articles

The rest of the section then explores where 1 Peter might fit in relation to John Berry's four categories. Seland immediately dismisses out of hand the options of marginalization and separation. The author wishes the audience to maintain good relationships with the host society.

To address the question of integration versus assimilation, he switches back to Gordon's more detailed delineation of the process of assimilation (173-87). The first stage is acculturation or cultural assimilation in matters such as language. They are to live honorably among the Gentiles (2:12) while following a "new code of honor and shame" (176). Seland thus considers their level of acculturation to be high with some significant modifications.

He does not, however, consider their assimilation to be high in any of Gordon's other categories. The strong sense of harassment and conflict evoked in 1 Peter 2-3 do not reflect that of high assimilation between Christians and their environment structurally, and certainly not in terms of attitude or behavioral reception, let alone civic assimilation. It is assumed that some women will be married to non-believers, but it is unlikely the author would encourage such if it were possible to avoid. And while the audience is not encouraged to withdraw from its societal relations, it is clear that its self-indentification departs quite dramatically from its host environment.

The conclusion, which ironically Seland himself never mentions explicitly, is that the audience would best be typified by "integration" in Berry's typology.

more to come...

Seland Review, Part 2

And now part 2 of my review of Torrey Seland's book Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. I want to go through the first chapter Seland wrote of the material in the book, from 1995, even though it is chapter 3 in the book itself.

Chapter 3: The 'Common Priesthood' of Philo and 1 Peter: A Philonic Reading of 1 Peter 2:5 & 9
This chapter originally appeared in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament in 1995. In this and chapter 4, Torrey experimented with a reader-response approach to 1 Peter, namely, how would an ideal "Philonic reader" understand and react to 1 Peter (79). This is an interesting question and a valid one.

However, Seland's work here raises certain questions. Since he is primarily a scholar of a historical-critical bent, why does he explore this Philonic reader? Does he have some underlying suspicion or inference he wants us to draw from this exercise? This question is particularly poignant when these two chapters are placed in juxtaposition with the other chapters in the book, especially those that attempt to shed light on 1 Peter by way of Philo's writings.

Seland's Philonic reader is "a Jewish reader who is well versed in Philo's works" who "would know the symbolic universe laid out in Philo's works just as well as Philo, if not better" (79). He notes that it has long been suggested that Philo's works may be of relevance for understanding 1 Peter, particularly when it comes to 1 Peter 2:5 (81). He spends the first half of the chapter summarizing Philo's views on the priesthoods of Israel, his views on the temple, the high priest, and the priesthood of Israel.

Throughout Seland's discussions of Philo here and elsewhere in the book, he is keen to deny that Philo "spiritualizes" the biblical text: Philo is "no blunt allegorizer" (82). Seland's concern seems to be to emphasize that Philo did not simply dismiss the literal practices of the biblical text in deference to purely "spiritual" reinterpretations. Thus Philo values the material sacrifices of the Jerusalem Temple (Mig. 92) and indeed the literal temple itself (Spec. 1.67). Seland prefers Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza's term "Kultisierung" or David Hay's "psychologizing" to describe Philo's propensity to move beyond the literal to more symbolic understandings of literal entities and practices (83).

Seland is correct to see a "both-and" approach in Philo to literal and allegorical interpretation. However, we wonder if the biases of a modernist age against allegorical interpretation are not at play here as well. While Philo valued the literal practices of the literal Jerusalem temple, it seems difficult not to conclude that he preferred the deeper meanings of Scripture and its cultic system to the literal ones (cf. Conf. 190; Mos. 2.108). Although it is difficult to say the least to locate Philo's writings in relation to contemporary events, we should not be surprised if Philo at some points took more interest in the literal temple in some of his writings as much because of his political environment as for his more rarified ideology (cf. Spec. 3.1).

Of most relevance for 1 Peter are Philo's characterization of Israel as being "to the whole inhabited world what the priest is to the State" (Spec. 2.162). Seland notes three ways in which Israel as a whole shares a common priesthood (88-91). First, they all keep the Law like priests, whose "chief and most essential quality" is piety (e.g., Mos. 1.66).

Secondly, they worship God as the true, one and only God in a way that the rest of the world does not. They thus provide appropriate worship to God, in a sense, for the rest of the world. The high priest also makes prayers and gives thanks not only for Israel to God, indeed, "not only on the behalf of the whole human race but also for the parts of nature, earth, water, air, fire" (Spec. 1.97; Seland 85-88).

Thirdly, in the rituals of the Passover especially, everyone in Israel acts as priest because the families kill their Passover lambs themselves without the mediation of a Levitical priest. In several respects, therefore, all Israel shares a priesthood beyond the specialized priests of the Levitical system.

The potential relevance of these latter aspects of Philo for 1 Peter 2:5 is obvious: "And you yourselves are built into a spiritual house as stones to be a holy priesthood to offer pleasing spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ" (my translation).

Also of concern in the rest of the chapter is 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are an elect race, a royal house, a priesthood, a holy nation, a people to possess, so that you might proclaim the virtues of the One who called you out of darkness into his astonishing light" (my translation).

Throughout the rest of the chapter (94-113), Torrey addresses the key exegetical issues of these two verses. His discussions are potentially frustrating, for they have an atmosphere of interest in what 1 Peter meant. Yet because the professed goal is to determine how a Philonic reader would read 1 Peter, conclusions are not clearly drawn about the meaning of 1 Peter. In other words, Seland's plane starts off down a historical critical runway with discussions of the original meaning of 1 Peter and literature to that end. But then the movie cuts to a quite different Philonic plane taking off. We are thus left somewhat uncertain about what happened to the other plane.

Is οικοδομεισθε in 1 Peter 2:5 indicative or imperative, or perhaps deliberately ambiguous? A Philonic reader would opt for indicative (94-95). Seland takes no position on what the meaning of 1 Peter is.

Is the οικος a house, a building, or a temple? Seland seems to disagree with John Elliott's arguments that it refers to a "household" rather than to a sanctuary (95-98). Elliott's agenda is to remove the His reasoning comes with his next question: Are the two words βασιλειον ιερατευμα to be taken as "royal priesthood" or as two separate nouns, "King's House, priesthood." With regard to 1 Peter, Seland is officially non-committal, although he rehearses the literature and notes that most take it as "royal priesthood" (98-101).

He does, however, draw a conclusion with regard to a Philonic reader. Philo explicitly interprets Exodus 19:6, which 1 Peter 2:5 echoes, twice: Abr. 56 and Sobr. 66. In these places, Philo takes the two words as two separate nouns, which agrees to that point with Elliott's interpretation of 1 Peter (101).

However, Seland differs strongly with Elliott's attempt to see the "King's House" in Abr. 56 as a reference to a royal palace. Since the king in question is God, Seland argues, the King's House is likely the temple, with the result that Israel is seen as the temple of God (103). Although he makes us to do some work to integrate his comments, Seland's conclusion is clearly that a Philonic reader would see the terms βασιλειον ιερατευμα as a reference to the audience of 1 Peter being a temple and priesthood, with the phrase "spiritual house" refering to them as a temple as well. *** Elliott's concern about anti-Jewish polemic (97)

Another interpretive issue Seland discusses is whether the term "priesthood" refers to Israel collectively or as individuals. Further, does 1 Peter have in mind Israel functioning as priests or is the reference more to a matter of their corporate identity? Seland notes the impact that an individual interpreter's theological tradition has seemed to play in one's conclusions (104).

With regard to a Philonic reader, Seland concludes that Philo would likely take the reference in a corporate sense, with the Jewish nation as a whole serving as priest (105-106; cf. Mos. 2.224). At the same time, all the individuals within Israel act as well, so while the corporate is primary, it entails individual action in the Passover. Seland is once again inexplicit about his conclusion on the question of function, but from his entire discussion it is clear that function is entailed in the common priesthood of Israel for Philo.

The final issue Seland discusses is whether the verb εξαγγειλητε in 1 Peter 2:9 has to do with missionary proclamation or declaration of praise to God (107-113). In his treatment of scholarship on 1 Peter, Seland refers sympathetic to the work of David Balch and J. Coppens that see this as a declaration of praise to God (112). But as his final concern is with a Philonic reader, Seland does not reach a firm conclusion on 1 Peter itself, concluding rather than a Philonic reader would likely side with Balch.

I found this chapter interesting and helpful. However, my main critique stands. I come away from it feeling as if Torrey is tricking me. He hooks me with a historical critical discussion of 1 Peter and discusses many aspects of Philo that would be relevant to drawing a conclusion in relation to the original meaning of 1 Peter. He gives me all the tools at hand to finish the historical-critical discussion.

But then at the last minute, rather than draw such a conclusion, he brings in his Philo ex machina and draws what at that point seems a tangential conclusion to what has been under discussion up to that point.

Reviewing Seland's Studies on 1 Peter, Part 1

I have been reading Torrey Seland's Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. I am writing a book review on it. Blogging (and emailing, much to the frustration of my colleagues at IWU) helps me get brainstorms out of my head and into a form that I can play with (some people do this by talking--at least you have a choice whether to read me or not :-). In any case, I will get some of my thoughts out on Seland's book here now, to polish (and condense) subsequently.

I should perhaps mention that Torrey is from Norway and is known for his work on Philo as well as his interest in Diaspora Judaism, particularly the social world of Diaspora Judaism (5). He has a massive resource page that I have as a regular link below. It is not considered impressive in biblical studies to be able to read another language. Indeed, it is expected that a New Testament scholar be able to read at least Greek, Hebrew, German, and French (OT scholars usually know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, German, and French, as well as perhaps Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Phoenician).

But it is another thing to be able to speak or write in these languages. I've been to conferences where there are world class English, German, and French scholars at the main table. Typically, the Germans and French can speak English... but the English speak English (to our shame)

All of that is to soften one criticism of Seland's book, namely, that it is filled with minor English infelicities. He would have done well to have a native English speaker proofread the manuscript. After saying that, I will confess to being a hypocrite. I gave a lecture in German once--and laughter was a regular feature of the hour.

This book is primarily a collection of articles and papers Torrey has published and delivered in separate contexts. The result is that these 5 chapters both duplicate material and at the same time are quite disperate in other respects.

Perhaps the signature thesis of the book is that "the author of 1 Peter considers his readers, the Christians in the Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1), as living a life influenced by social circumstances very much comparable to those experienced in the Diaspora by proselytes to Judaism" (2). This is the focus of chapter 2.

However, this thesis does not really provide the focal organizing principle behind this particular selection of writings. Beside the fact that these are all essays on 1 Peter by Torrey Seland, the more common feature of these chapters is the placement of 1 Peter against the backdrop of that Diaspora Judaism typified by Philo. Seland himself gives three common features of the chapters: 1) the application of insights from social studies of the Graeco-Roman world to 1 Peter, 2) a focus on insights drawn from scholarship on the Jewish Diaspora, and 3) the special reference to Philo in several of the chapters (8).

For the purposes of blogging, I want to run through his chapters primarily in the order they were written rather than the order in which the book presents them. This will help me get a sense of any development or expansion of Seland's thinking. However, I will start with chapter 1, which was written specifically for this collection.

Chapter 1: The Making of 1 Peter in Light of Ancient Graeco-Roman Letterwriting and Distribution
In good historical-critical fashion, Seland seemed compelled to write a chapter for the collection that somewhat sets a context for his probes in the other essays. In keeping with his concrete interests, he approaches this context not from the usual "author, audience, date..." approach. Indeed, he pays very little attention to the question of authorship and audience in the book. Rather, he focuses on the mechanics of how ancient letters were generally produced and distributed.

Before he begins this exploration, he gives his basic thesis: "both the description of Silvanus in 5:12, and the vast areas of destination of the letter (1:1) should be read as indicating that Silvanus was the writer/secretary, but not the courier of the letter" (10). I agree, despite some vocal objections to the contrary.

In keeping with his interest in social scientific matters, Seland explores the typical setting in which literature was produced in the Greco-Roman world. Works were often underwritten by patrons, who would invite them to present portions of the work in process to guests (14). Early readings also took place among close friends. This process certainly involved correction, abbreviation, and expansion, which probably has contributed to some of the variation in the manuscripts of ancient works.

Seland does not find very convincing the suggestion that commercial bookstores of some sort existed before the end of the first century CE. Nor does he think it likely that private individuals had access to the cursus publicus, the official Roman mail system. Individuals would have to be found to write down and deliver an encyclical letter such as 1 Peter.

"[A] letter having only the address of 1 Peter 1:1 would hardly be deliverable" (19). Either the carrier would have to know the precise location of the intended audience or specific locations would need to be given on a separate sheet of papyrus or on the verso of the letter. Once the letter arrived, copies would likely be made at the destination location as well.

Seland then applies this general framework to 1 Peter. He suggests that individuals like Silvanus and Mark, mentioned in the letter's closing, might have been involved in the production of the letter, not least as individuals to whom the author had read and tested the letter before sending (20-22).

The expression, "I have written you through Silvanus" in 5:12 is of particular interest to Seland (and to me). He is aware of some strong sentiment, based on Ignatius' use of this phrase, that it points to Silvanus as the carrier of the letter rather than the amanuensis (22-23). However, I agree with Seland that the evidence in these three instances is far from definitive (25-26): Ignatius to Romans 10:1; Smyrna 12:1; Philadelphia 11:2. See also Polycarp's letter to the Philippians 15, which the book mislabels as Ignatius' letter to Polycarp (25).

It is true that Romans refers to Ephesians, plural, as the ones through whom Ignatius has written. Thus Norbert Brox argues they must be the carriers rather than the writers (26). In Acts 15:23 as well, Judas and Silas are apparently those who deliver the Jerusalem letter to Antioch (27).

However, these two references do not provide a sufficient basis by which to conclude that the expression "write through" only referred to letter carriers. Indeed, even these instances where it seems clear that the individuals involved did carry the letters we cannot rule out the possibility that one of them also served as amanuensis. In the case of Ignatius to the Romans, it is quite possible that one of these Ephesians was the scribe.

Similarly, we have no basis to exclude Judas or Silas as letter writer in Acts 15:23. And the contexts of Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; Phld. 11:2; and Pol. Phil. 15 give no certain indication of exactly what role Bourros and Crescens might have played. Finally, Seland has produced a reference in Eusebius to Clement as writer rather than carrier (Hist. eccl. 4.23.11).

We are thus forced to look at the context of 1 Peter 5:12 for evidence of Silas' role. Here Seland sides with interpreters like Goppelt and Radermacher that the qualifer "I have written briefly," points toward writing as that with which Silvanus helped (28), especially since the letter proceeds to describe the content of what has been written. While I agree with Seland here, his argument is not as strong as his conclusion. This is one of my critques of his book. He has very interesting and plausible ideas, I think, but he often does not argue for them or development nearly as much as they warrant (I'm being a hypocrite here, for this is often said of my first drafts of things too).

The final part of chapter 1 deals with the question of how the letter might have come to its destinations. In particular, he discusses the suggestion that the order of the provinces in 1:1 indicates the path that Silas took when delivering the letter. In the end he concludes that the order of 1 Peter does not likely represent the traveling route of the letter. For one thing, a single letter carrier would have to pass back through Galatia to get to Asia from Cappadocia.

But more importantly, he suggests that the areas covered in the prescript are so wide that a single letter carrier could hardly cover all of them. We suspect that when we arrive at this conclusion, we see one of the main (and somewhat hidden) reasons Seland does not think of Silas as the letter carrier: "as 1 Peter is a circular letter intended for a vast territory, such a mention would make little sense as it is very unlikely that Silvanus could be considered the carrier of the letter to all these regions" (36-37).

One critique I have of this book (I'm a hypocritic again to point out) is that Seland spends a lot of time on some things, but his richest thoughts often appear almost out of nowhere without clear warning or appropriate development. So it is at the end of chapter 1. One of the richest suggestions in this chapter barely shows up in the final paragraph of the chapter body and in the last paragraph of the conclusion:

"I would suggest that a more probable scenario should include several carriers; if a carrier brought the letter from Rome by sea to one of the harbors in Asia Minor, possibly in Pontus, the letter would most probably have been copied there, and then sent further on to other Christian communities in the same areas and then further on" (36).

More to come...

1 Peter in a Nutshell

I'm Peter, and you're scattered all over Asia Minor. Hello!

God's done great things for us through Jesus Christ! Salvation is coming; it's ready and waiting! Of course things aren't so great right now. But remember, the prophets foretold of all this about Christ. They were puzzled but excited, and the angels were very curious too.

In this time when you are exiles and strangers--this is not your country--live in terms of the country that is coming rather than the way you Gentiles used to live. Be holy like God is holy. You've been born again. You're a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation now.

So live such good lives among the unbelieving nations that they may see your good behavior and glorify God for it at the judgment. Be subject to political authorities. Slaves, submit to your masters even when they beat you wrongly. They beat Jesus wrongly too. Women, submit to your husbands even when they are unbelievers. Maybe they will be won over by your virtue. Husbands, honor your wives.

To sum all that up: live among the nations honorably. Be ready to testify to Christ if they bring you to trial. Christ's suffering brought victory, which he proclaimed to the fallen spirits from the days of Noah. Noah was saved on the water from the Flood of those days. Baptism is water that saves us today.

So suffering purges us of sin and motivates us to live for God, not human passions. Christ is getting ready to judge the living and the dead. Yes, the dead will rise because Christ preached to them too.

The end is near. The judgment has begun with the house of God--don't be surprised. And if it is this bad for us, imagine what it will be like for the rest of the world! Rejoice in the honor of suffering with the name "Christian."

So elders who lead the flock, be good shepherds. And those who are younger should submit to the elders. Humble yourselves under God, and He will lift you up. You will suffer for a while, but then comes a time of eternal glory.

Silas helped me write this letter. Those here in "Babylon," Rome, greet you, including Mark.