PHILEMON

 

This short letter was written from either Ephesus (53-57) or Rome (61-63 AD) while Paul was under house arrest and addressed to Philemon in Colossae. It is classed as one of the Pastoral Epistles. It provides a prime example of one of the problems in interpreting NT epistles; it is like listening to only one end of a telephone conversation. We have to read between the lines.

1-14

Background – runaway slaves were rarely hunted down, but if they were discovered, the authorities would arrange to return them to their owners. The owners usually beat them and often sold them into harder labor.

vv. 9-10 “Begot” in the figurative sense. “Old man” – Paul was in his early 50's at the time. Paul converted Onesimus while a prisoner. This indicates that Paul was not in an isolated prison cell, but had some access to visitors.

vv. 10-11 There is a pun present in “useful = Onesimus” and also in “benefit” (v. 20).

v. 12 Actually, Paul was disobeying Deuteronomy 23:15-16 in returning a slave to his master. Why did he do it?

15-25

v. 19 Paul's own handwriting functions as a legal IOU. Either Onesimus had stolen something from his master or Paul is volunteering to pay for the slave's time. Philemon had Paul to owe to his existence as a Christian. Proverbs 6 warns against becoming a surety for someone else, but love of the brethren trumps that advice. One commentator noted that Paul guaranteed to pay for any past debts of Onesimus, but not against his future ones.

The first question to ask is why an obviously private letter between two individuals found its way into the Bible. It is the only NT book that does not allude to the OT. Even those who hold that this is a genuinely personal letter of Paul’s would not have trouble agreeing with Dunn that “the wider community is also in view.” In the first place, as Childs puts it, “Paul’s human appeal to Philemon as a prisoner in Christ is ultimately grounded in the gospel and is not simply a private concern of the apostle based on friendship.”

Also, it shows the practical working out of real social issues in the context of principles of Christian brotherhood and fellowship.

Martin’s assessment: “...this brief epistle is to be seen not so much as a private letter of Paul to an individual...but as an apostolic letter about a personal matter...”

The first evidence that the letter was important to Paul is seen in the literary skill exercised by Paul in drafting this note. In the first place, it follows the usual convention of ancient letters of the time (greeting, thanksgiving, blessing, body of letter, closing greetings and benediction). But even casual letters followed that format. Brown remarks on the extreme subtlety of the writing with “almost every verse hinting at something more than is stated.” Other commentators have pronounced:

“ It is no mere casual note, but a carefully crafted and sensitively worded piece, employing tact and irony.”

            “The personal and informal nature of Philemon...may distract attention from its extremely careful composition and observance of literary forms.”

Armed with these opinions, let's look first at how the letter is organized:

The Structure of Philemon

 

A. Opening Greetings and Blessing (1-3)

Five proper names ending with “grace...Lord Jesus Christ”

Fellow worker (1)

Fellow soldier (2)

B. Expression of Confidence (4-7) ends with “heart, refresh, brother”

C. “I am sending him back to you” (8-14) “love, I Paul”

C'. “Receive him as you would receive me” (15-19) “beloved, I Paul”

B'. Expression of Confidence (20-22) begins with “brother, refresh, heart”

A'. Closing Greetings and Blessing (23-25)

Five proper names ending with “grace...Lord Jesus Christ”

                                            Fellow prisoner (of war) (23)

                                Fellow worker (24)

There is actually a three-part argument in the letter using the same word for heart (the whole self): “[I]f Philemon refreshes the heart of Christians (v. 7); and if Onesimus refreshes Paul’s heart (v. 12); then to refresh Paul’s heart, Philemon must refresh the heart of Onesimus (v. 20).”

Sections A (Philemon 1-3) and A' (Philemon 23-25)

These two short units of Philemon should not be dismissed as mere bookkeeping since the above structure shows they are very prominent in the overall scheme of the letter. In each case Paul identifies himself directly or indirectly as a prisoner (different Greek word used in each case) “of / in Christ Jesus.”

Another implication to be derived from this chiasm is a possible literary reason behind the strange shifts in designations for Paul’s coworkers Epaphras and Aristarchus found in the conclusions of his letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Without such a simple explanation, you end up with theories such as Dunn's that the two traded places as voluntary prisoners with Paul in between the time of the writing of the two epistles.

What is the reason for Paul utilizing the various designations for his “fellow” Christians? Regarding verses 23 and 24, Martin states that “Paul emphasizes yet once more the social nature of the Christian ministry with its mutual obligations,” obligations of which Paul hopes to remind Philemon in this letter. This is thus yet another literary device for stressing “the primary message of this epistle...Christian fellowship” and all its implications. This “brotherhood of faith” theme is reinforced by the use of “brother / sister” seven times in the epistle.

Both greetings are addressed to a plural audience, lending credence to the opinion that the larger setting of the Church was in view here. References to Philemon’s own house(church) in verses 2 and 22 may strengthen this supposition.

Sections B (Philemon 4-7) and B' (Philemon 20-22)

The relatively lengthy Thanksgiving Section B indicates cordial relations between Paul and Philemon and follows the pattern of other Pauline thanksgiving sections in that it is used to stress the main themes of the letter. The strongest parallel existing between these two units is that of theme. Verse 21 reiterates “Paul’s confidence in Philemon’s character as a Christian man,” first expressed in verses 4-7.

The two most debated verses in this brief appeal of Paul’s are (a) the thought behind his prayer in verse 6 and (b) the true nature of the “benefit” he expects from Philemon in verse 21. Both obscure passages seem to expect an action out of the recipient Philemon, and both occur in these parallel literary units B and B'. Therefore, it could reasonably inferred that both refer to the same request by Paul. This request has, at least in the latter verse, been reduced down to two likely candidates: the freeing of Onesimus or releasing him for a time to serve Paul. Most scholarly opinion of late has sided with the first view for a variety of reasons.

Sections C (Philemon 8-14) and C' (Philemon 15-19)

Section C constitutes one long Greek sentence which outlines Paul’s actions in relation to the runaway slave Onesimus and is characterized by its use of “imprisonment / prisoner” (vv. 9, 10, 13). This section begins (8-9) and ends (14) with a reference to Paul’s right to command Philemon, but his unwillingness to do so. Section C' turns to Paul’s expectations of Philemon in regard to Onesimus and contains the repeated word “owe” (vv. 18, 19).

Paul is probably hinting at the idea of freeing Onesimus (presumably the idea in verse 16) earlier in verse 13 when he uses diakonein for “serve” in place of douleuein, the root verb from which “slave” is derived. In these two sections Paul subliminally sets up the argument that it is his place as spiritual father to both Onesimus (v. 10) and Philemon (v. 19) to effect a reconciliation between his two sons.

There is an unusual set of bookends for this body of the letter since Paul in verses 8 and 19 utilizes the rhetorical device of stating that he will not say something, at the same time that he in fact is saying it.

Overall Structure

This letter, as diagrammed in Figure 1, falls into two halves. This is significant in highlighting Paul’s description of Philemon as “beloved” in verse 1 “paving the way for a later description of Onesimus as he should be treated in that community (v. 16: ‘a beloved brother’).” These two designations usher in their respective halves of the letter.

The chiastic form of this composition, as usual, underscores its main points. The two-part body of the letter (sections C and C') demonstrates that one basis of Paul’s appeal to Philemon is Paul’s close relationship to Onesimus. Sections B and B' base the same appeal on Paul’s confidence in Philemon’s character as a Christian. And finally, sections A and A', with their emphasis on Christian titles, stress the equality and interdependence of all Christian brothers and sisters. One may have wished that Paul were more forthright in stating his exact wishes regarding Onesimus’ fate, but as F. F. Bruce says, “What this epistle does is to bring us into an atmosphere in which the institution [slavery] could only wilt and die.”

Why didn't Paul merely command Philemon to free Onesimus if that was what he desired?

1. Appeal to free Onesimus had to be very subtle since Roman authorities had had several slave revolts and could have accused the new Christian religion of teaching that slavery was wrong.

2. Paul didn't want to reward Onesimus for his bad actions.

3. He wanted Philemon to do it out of love and conviction.

4. He really didn't want Philemon to be freed. See I Corinthians 7:21.

Consider the pros and cons of these various opinions.

What happened to Onesimus? Onesimus is mentioned in Colossians 4:9 also. It indicates that the slave originally came from that city but was not a Christian at that time and therefore the church there was unacquainted with him. He and Tychicus are entrusted with carrying the Letter to the Colossians and the Letter to Philemon. He is specifically called a “brother” to let people know that he is now a Christian. He is called faithful (or trustworthy) in contrast to his past behavior. And he is not called a slave, as is Tychicus.

St. Ignatius, in a letter written around 110 AD, on his way to Rome for execution mentions meeting the aged bishop of Ephesus, who was named Onesimus. Is it perhaps the same Onesimus? It has even been proposed that Onesimus was responsible for gathering together all of Paul's letters for circulation.

 

II AND III JOHN

Figure 1: The Structure of 2 John

I. Introductory Greetings (vv. 1-4) “the elect lady and her children”

II. Exhortation: Love One Another and Follow Commandments (vv. 5-6)

III. Deceivers (v. 7)

II'. Exhortation: Abide in the Doctrine (vv. 8-11)

I'. Final Words (vv. 12-13) “the children of your elect sister”

Who are these elect women and their children? “Elect lady” may refer to the church with “her children” being the Christians themselves. Alternatively, the lady may be the owner of a house in which “her children” referred to the Christians meeting there.

There are a couple of similarities with the teachings in I John:

Sections II and II' are exhortations to live the Christian life and contain between them exactly the same three aspects of Christian living emphasized in 1 John.

Verse 7 mentions “Antichrist” as referring to more than one person. The same is true in the only other 

references to Antichrist in the New Testament: I John 2:18-22 and 4:1-3. What is the specific heresy 

mentioned in this verse? Docetism (do-seet'-ism) = denying that Christ came in the flesh. The major 

belief of this group was that Christ's spirit possessed the man Jesus at his baptism and then departed 

right before the crucifixion.

Figure 2: The Structure of 3 John

        I. Introductory Greetings (vv. 1-4)

                II. Exhortation: Love (Gaius as good example) (vv. 5-8)

                        III. Evil Behavior (Diotrephes as example) (vv. 9-10)

                II'. Exhortation: Do Good and Shun Evil (Demetrius as good example) (vv. 11-12)

        I'. Final Words (vv. 13-15)

Specific examples of behavior are contrasted here, unlike the more general teachings in 2 John. To deliberately emphasize the contrast in behavior, the same Greek root for “works” appears in praise of Gaius in verse 5 and in the censure of Diotrephes in verse 10.

What is the relationship between these two letters?

In terms of the literary form of these epistles, there are some differing opinions.

On the one hand:

Four commentaries stated that both 2 and 3 John are excellent examples of ancient Greek letters.

            Three other scholars said that 2 John resembles other NT letters while 3 John is more similar to secular Greek letters of the time.

            Lastly, one writer said that neither of these letters uses the format of either NT letters or secular Greek letters.

Regarding this last opinion: whereas Paul's letters have a blessing for the audience at the beginning and end, 2 John only has one at the start and 3 John only has one at the end. Almost like they were designed to be paired as one letter, especially when you look at the similar wording.

Peace to recipients (2 John 3)

Joy to John (2 John 12)

---------------------------

                                    Joy to John (3 John 4)

Peace to recipients (3 John 15)

Orr simply states, “The Second and Third Letters are obviously a matched pair.” Factors going into this conclusion include the identification of the writer as The Elder, their comparable length, and the fact that they have been preserved together.

A comparison of figures 1 and 2 shows that the two letters are also divided in a similar manner.

Even the center sections of each are similar in intent by describing characteristics of dangerous negative elements within the church. There are a number of striking verbal similarities between these two epistles also, especially between their opening and closing statements.

I and I: “the elder to the...whom I love (agapao) in the truth,” “children,” “all,” “I rejoiced greatly,” “walk(ing) in the truth.”

            I' and I': “I have/had much to write to you..I would rather not use paper (write with pen) and ink...I hope to see you...and talk with you face to face”

Therefore Orr concludes, “We may expect a common purpose in the Letters.” On the other hand, Raymond Brown says, “As for the substance of the bodies of II and III John,...the two letters have little in common.”

Contrary to Brown's opinion, both letters deal with the issue of whether to show hospitality to itinerant 

teachers and prophets who were visiting. In the first century church this was a very important issue 

because these people were totally dependent on support from the local congregations. The very early 

church document called the Didache attempted to give practical advice on how to deal with this

situation.

 

Either letter by itself would be easy to be taken to an extreme. A balance needs to be struck. That is, 

what happens when the requirement to love one another comes in conflict with the adherence to proper 

doctrine? A discussion arose in one of our Sunday school classes concerning a situation in which one 

of the occasional attenders was reported by others to privately hold almost heretical views even though 

he had never expressed those views in the class. What should they do? Tell him he wasn't welcome in 

the class anymore (one extreme that might be inferred from 2 John) or invite him to give a series of 

presentations to the class so that the merits of the ideas could be discussed (the other extreme that 

might be inferred from 3 John)? What do you think?

 

I JOHN 4:1-6

It is helpful to start out this lesson with a bit of Biblical Anthropology. So first I will ask you a question: Can you define the word soul? The Greek word psuche appears a number of times in the New Testament with various meanings.

1. Soul = person

“We were in all 276 souls in the ship.” Acts 27:37

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities...” Romans 13:1

“...eight souls were saved through water.” I Peter 3:20

Soul = non-material aspects of mankind

“...fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28

This last passage is a clear example of a BIPARTITE DIVISION.

2. Soul = Personality

“...the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit...” Hebrews 4:12

“...may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I Thessalonians 5:23

These passages further divide the non-material person into spirit and soul, resulting in a TRIPARTITE DIVISION.

However, we should keep in mind that whichever division one pictures, it isn't as if we can clearly identify which part of us is soul/spirit and which is body. We are all of them at the same time. It is somewhat akin to the nature of Christ, who was wholly God and wholly man.

Taking a tripartite definition of “soul,” it is usually further subdivided into three aspects that make up our personality, and these are easy to memorize by considering the Wizard of Oz. Look at the supposed lacking element in each of Dorothy's friends:

scarecrow – intelligence, tin woodsman – emotions, and cowardly lion – will. As we will see in a minute, these match up fairly closely with the three points of emphasis that John makes in this letter.

 1.  Love, especially of Christian brothers and sisters. Key words used in these passages are “love” and “hate.” (These resonate with the emotional side of our make-up)

2. Belief, or doctrinal emphasis, especially regarding the person of Jesus Christ. The words “truth,” “liar” and “know” are especially prominent in these sections. (intellect)

3. Obedience – an ethical emphasis sometimes expressed more in terms of its opposite, “sin.” (the will to do the right thing and refrain from sinning)

All are really necessary for the integrated Christian life.

What kind of a person do you get if not all of these three aspects of the Christian life are present?

        Belief         Love         Obedience

1.     yes              no no

2.     yes              yes no

3.     yes             no yes

4.     no              yes no

5.     no              yes yes

6.     no             no yes

1. worldly evangelicals (The title of a 1980 book)

2. cartoon of Snoopy in the snow but no one will help him – faith without works is dead

3. The “Chosen Frozen” (hard-nosed, unsympathetic Christians)

4. Beatles, New Age (all you need is love, undefined spirituality)

5. “good people,” (Mormons, liberal Christians)

6. Make up their own rules of right and wrong. (The Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzche, Hitler)

The current passage for discussion concerns one of these characteristics of a Christian: correct belief or doctrine.

I John 4:1 “Dear friends” here and “little children” in verse 4 shows the love and care the Apostle demonstrated toward his audience.

The Greek construction of this verse implies that some of the audience had believed the false spirits (“Stop believing”).

“Evil spirit” can be singular (Ephesians 2:2-3) or plural (I Timothy 4:1) in the NT. Plural “spirits” doesn't necessarily refer to multiple evil spirits, but may mean multiple false teachings or false prophets. John here is pointing out the ultimate source of these teachings. We shouldn't get hung up on the designation “prophet” since, as Raymond Brown points out, “Prophet and teacher are closely found throughout the NT, and at times they are virtually indistinguishable.”

Warnings against false teachers appear throughout the Bible, and therefore we have to keep on the lookout for departures from the truth.

Matthew 7:15 – “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

Acts 20:30 – parting words of Paul to the elders of Ephesus: “I know that after I am gone...some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.” The Book of Revelation (2:2) indicates that the Ephesian Church listened to this warning and rejected the false teachers among them.

2 Peter 2:1 – “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions.”

The next logical question is: What basis does one use to distinguish false and true spirits?

The problem not a new one.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5: “If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you...and they say, 'Let us follow other gods' (whom you have not known) 'and let us serve them,' you must not heed the words of those prophets...”

Deuteronomy 18:22: “If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken.” Just look at the many Christian prophecy books written in the 60's and 70's.

Didache (early 2nd Century AD): “yet not everyone that speaks in the Spirit is, but only if he has the ways of the Lord.” In other words, is he a hypocrite or does he practice what he preaches? This book also warns Christians to reject any teacher who starts to mooch off of you and asks for food or money while he is prophesying. This is a useful criterion to use when viewing some TV preachers.

Paul gives some additional information regarding testing in which he seems to imply that each congregation has been given the gifts to allow it to withstand false teachings. (discernment, prophecy, teaching)

I Corinthians 12:10 “the discernment of spirits” is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit

I Corinthians 14:29 “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.”

I Thessalonians 5:19-21 – “ Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything, hold fast to what is good.”

I John 4:2-3a John has an additional test found in these verses in which he is dealing with the heresy that says Jesus is divine but not human.

Three general observations regarding this test: (a) The test is not in outward signs and miracles but in their teachings, (b) It can't be taken as the only test of a teacher from God since this test can't be divorced from the other signs of a Christian in this letter – love and keeping God's commandments, (c) New Bible Commentary – “The emphasis is on the Person not the proposition,” that is, the wording of confession indicates personal allegiance to Jesus.

What does it mean that Jesus came in the flesh? The true union of the Eternal Word with a human personality of Jesus is to be distinguished from the belief that Jesus was merely adopted as God's Son at his baptism or that God's Spirit only inhabited Jesus' body temporarily. There is a lot of doctrinal meat packed into these verses. “Has come” implies he is still in the flesh – indication of a belief in his bodily resurrection as well as his pre-existence.

John repeats the wording of this confession in II John 7.

A possible variant reading of the last phrase actually says that those who do not confess are “annulling (doing away with, dissolving, or cursing) Christ.” Paul teaches something similar when he says in I Corinthians 12:3: “...no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says 'Let Jesus be cursed!' and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit.”

The controversy over the person of Christ has been with us since the beginning of Christianity and is with us today. Brief history of heresy:

Cerinthus of Ephesus (ca. 100 AD) – According to church tradition, he clashed with the Apostle John who fled from a bath house when he was told that Cerinthus was there. Cerinthus' teaching was that the spirit of Christ guided Jesus from his baptism to just before his crucifixion, and then left him. Many of heretical teachings reflect different aspects of Gnosticism. It was the most dangerous rival of Christianity in 2^nd cent. AD. Gnosticism denied the statement in Genesis 1 that the physical earth was good.

Basilides (died ca. 140) – said that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Christ's place. Islamic teaching is similar, but substitutes Judas Iscariot on cross.

Docetists (2^nd cent.) – Jesus was only spirit; never suffered. Rosicrucianism, Christian Science

Ebionites (2^nd cent.) – Opposite heresy; Jesus was only man. Unitarianism, liberal theology

Arius (256-336) -- taught that only God the Father was divine by nature; Christ was a created being.

The Council of Nicaea (325) convened because of Arian controversy and stated “ one Lord Jesus Christ...true God of true God..who was made flesh...and became man.”

Jehovah Witnesses – Jesus is divine but he is not God. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.” (New World Translation)

Church of Latter Day Saints – Even God is not uniquely divine. “As we now are, God once was. As God now is, we may become.” (Brigham Young) Note that this is an echo of the serpent's words to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Q – Does it really matter whether Christ was wholly human, wholly divine, or both?

I John 4:4-6

The pronouns you, they and we are all emphatic in the Greek. “They” refers back to false teachers. “We” = John's community or the apostles.

v. 4 Overcoming (a favorite word of John in Revelation) is not due to their own effort but by Christ's conquest over the world. The verb in the perfect tense indicates continuous action, not a one-time event. John's audience could distinguish truth from falsehood. Not because they were smarter than others, but like little children they trusted the spirit of God within them to lead them to the truth. (“The one who is in you” is not specified, but probably refers to the Holy Spirit.)

Many Christians exhibit a defeatist attitude and are constantly stressing how bad things are today. This is not really consistent with the attitude we are demonstrate: we are conquerors. Remember Elisha's comment when he was surrounded by a hostile army: “Fear not, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” (II Kings 6:16) He was then shown God's invisible army.

v. 5 “World” appears three times in this verse. There is a different meaning than in vv. 1 and 3 where it has the neutral meaning of the place of human dwelling. Here, it has a negative meaning. “World” means both mankind united in opposition to God and the evil attitude characteristic of such people. Satan rules in that realm as prince. John 12:31 – prince of this world, II Corinthians 4:4 – god of this world. “World” in these instances is sometime translated as “age.”

One test of a prophet from God that is certainly not taught by John is their success in winning followers. Like H. L. Mencken's famous cynical saying : “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” The same thing can be said about the spiritual realm. My next door neighbor when I first moved to a new town tried to get us to attend his church because he said it was the biggest one in town and they even broadcast their services on TV. That is not necessarily a fool-proof test of true Christian teaching, because the world tends to listen to false teachers –WHY?

“For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.” (2 Timothy. 4:3-4)

“The philosophy of false teachers accommodates itself to the prevailing climate of opinion in the world.” -- F. F. Bruce.

v. 6 This time the test is applied to John's audience, and by extension, to all of us today – true believers listen to what God and the writers He inspired have said. This must be an important truth for John since at least five times in his gospel, John preserves the words of Jesus teaching the same thing.

John 8:47: “...he who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

John 10:4-5 – The Good Shepherd “The sheep follow him because they know his voice. They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers.”

John 10:27 – “My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.”

John 14:17 – “This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.”

John 18:37 – “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”

Someone has said, “God wrote the Bible as a love letter to His people.

If you don't understand it, it's because you are reading someone else's mail.” This comment and the above passages could be construed as teaching predestination. It is not predestination, but “dualism of decision,” in Raymond Brown's words.

If you don't understand it, it's because you are reading someone else's mail.” This comment and these passages could be construed as teaching predestination. It is not predestination, but “dualism of decision,” in Raymond Brown's words

I JOHN: INTRODUCTION

“Attempts to trace a consecutive argument throughout I John have never succeeded,” in the view of F. F. Bruce, as many other students of this work would agree. That situation has led scholars to search for a more literary, rather than logical, structure to better follow the author’s flow of thought.

Verses 1:1-4 These four verses are a single sentence in the Greek and are almost unanimously regarded as the prologue to the work. In the same way, I John 5:6-21 can be seen as its epilogue epistle (Read 5:6-9). It has been pointed out that these two passages share similarities with each other and with the conclusion of John’s Gospel. Look at the purpose for writing in each.

“We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.” (I John 1:3)

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (I John 5:13)

“These signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31)

The body of the book organized around several attributes, or tests, of a true Christian. They have been variously identified by scholars:

Grayston-- (a) belief in Jesus as the Son of God and (b) brotherly love within the Christian community.

von Wahlde-- (a) belief in the name of Jesus = keeping his word and (b) brotherly love.

Barker-- (a) belief in Jesus and (b) love = obedience.

P. R. Jones-- (a) God is light, (b) God is righteousness, (c) God is love.

Kistemaker-- (a) Walk in the Light, (b) Believe in Jesus, (c) Love God

But these themes do not occur in large discrete sections. Grayston notes, “The repetitions which every reader notices are deliberate. Nothing is acceptable until it has been said, and repeated, and confirmed.”

According to my analysis, the repeated literary units appear to cluster around the following three themes describing evidences or characteristics of the Christian life:

1. Love, especially of Christian brothers and sisters. Key words under this theme are “love” and “hate.” Read 3:11-18 1. If you hate, you are a murderer like Cain. 2. Show love in concrete ways.

2. Belief, or doctrinal emphasis, especially regarding the person of Jesus Christ. The words “truth,” “liar” and “know” are especially prominent in these sections. Read 4:1-6 One form of heresy that was apparently around at the time involved the theory that Christ only borrowed Jesus' earthly body and left it on the cross. Islamic teachings similarly deny that God would have let Christ die in such a manner.

3. Obedience – an ethical emphasis sometimes expressed more in terms of its opposite, sin. Read 3:4-9 What about the statement that a Christian can't sin? The opposite idea is expressed in 1:10 and a sort of compromise in 2:1.

The question is: which of these characteristics is the most importance?

One way of looking at the the letter is to state that John purposely presented his ideas in such a jumbled and complicated fashion in order that one characteristic would not stand out above the others. Thus, all three are equally important.

However, I have found that there are at least two ways in which the literary structure of the letter can be analyzed. According to both proposals, there are 17 sections in the epistle. This alone is significant since that is a number of symbolic significance to the Apostle John in both his Gospel and the Book of Revelation. This helps to confirm the traditional authorship of the work. Also, the root word agape defining the “Love” sections appears in the epistle a total of 51 (17 x 3) times in this letter – interesting since John was the apostle whom Jesus loved.

Of the 17 sections, in addition to those devoted to one of the three themes, there are miscellaneous sections falling into three clear categories: summaries of the three major themes (3:19-24 and 5:1-5), words of reassurance (2:12-14, 3:1-3 and 5:13-20) and commands (2:15-17, 2:26-29 and 5:21).

Without going into all the detailed analysis involved, the conclusion one draws from both of the proposed structures for the book, there are a number of clear indications that the most prominent theme in John's eyes is that of “belief.” Thus, John follows in this epistle the well known pattern of Paul by emphasizing the (at least temporal) priority of Christian belief over living an obedient Christian life. This makes perfect sense since without first coming to Christ there is no hope for us with our own resources to either keep the commandments of God or truly demonstrate love to others.

 

II PETER 3: DIALOGUE WITH A PRETERIST

Full Preterism is the view that Christ's Second Coming happened in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed by the Romans. Thus, Christ will not come again, there will be no Last Judgment on the inhabitants of the earth, there will be no bodily resurrection of believers, and the earth will not be physically transformed in the last days. By most Christian standards of belief this would be labeled a heretical view.

Full Preterism is, however, not the same as Partial Preterism, which merely believes that some, but by no means all, of the OT and NT prophecies were fulfilled in the first century AD by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One of the hardest passages in the NT for full preterists to explain is 2 Peter 3 with its discussion of the destruction of the present Heaven and Earth and their replacement with a New Heaven and Earth. Below are excerpts from a continuing dialogue I have had with a full preterist, who took most of his ideas from several full preterist publications.

This letter was written probably from 65 to 68, right before Peter’s death. As we know, the Romans would invade Jerusalem, destroy it, and destroy the temple. So far, I agree with you entirely.

I think Peter foresaw this and foresaw the end of the Old Covenant. It is indeed possible that Peter foresaw it, but (1) he nowhere mentions that he had some sort of word from the LORD to that effect and (2) it certainly would contradict Jesus' sayings regarding no one knowing the time of his coming (assuming the full preterist view that the destruction of Jerusalem was the same as Christ's Second Coming).

Regarding the Old Covenant, it had already passed away even before the destruction of the Temple. This is witnessed by (a) the tearing of the veil in the Temple at Jesus' death, symbolizing the removal of the barrier between God and the people through Jesus' sacrifice and allowing them direct access to Him. (b) It was also recognized early on by Peter who was told by God through a vision that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean. (c) In addition, the rulings of the Jerusalem Council recognized that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be called God's people, and this had been the main sign of Israel's covenant with God. (d) The Book of Hebrews was certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We know this because of Hebrews 9, which describes the temple rites going on at the time of writing. But in that book the author states that the sacrifices required by law have already been replaced by Christ's sacrifice (Hebrews 10). Hebrews 8:13 even states that the first covenant is obsolete.

A few additional comments on that subject. First, if we limit the time of the Old Covenant to only the time that the Temple was available to hold sacrifices in, then what do we do with the extended time of the Babylonian and Persian Exile? By your reasoning, the Old Covenant would not be in effect during that time period because the temple was not available. The truth, of course, was that Judaism continued to operate even in its absence and merely redefined what it meant to be God's people under those conditions. The institution of synagogue worship was begun during that time, the kosher laws and Sabbath observances continued, Passover continued to be celebrated at home every year, and children continued to be circumcised as a visible sign of the covenant between God and his people. The Jews continue all of these practices today in the absence of a temple.

You imply elsewhere that Paul engaged in temple practices after the third missionary trip because he felt that the Old Covenant was still in effect. Acts 21:17-24 makes it clear that Paul only did this at the strong urging of James and the elders of the Jerusalem church in order to not to give any further ammunition to the Jewish opposition. Similarly, Paul has Timothy (a half-Jew) circumcised expressly so that he will not prove to be a barrier in Paul's missionary efforts toward the Jews (Acts 16:1-4). Paul clearly spells out his overall rationale in these actions in I Corinthians 9:20 when he says, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law though I myself am not under the law.”

Similarly, he acted as a Greek when among the Greeks and even quoted pagan poets and philosophers as if they were authoritative. Paul no more believed in the continued efficacy of the temple sacrifices than he did in the gods of the Greeks and Romans he quoted.

Luke 16:16-17 may also be pertinent to this discussion. Jesus states that “The law and the prophets were in effect until John (the Baptist) came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter of the law to be dropped.” What does this say concerning the Covenant of Law? Should we perhaps date its disappearance in God's view to the beginning of Jesus' and John's ministries on earth? Or maybe verse 17 could be interpreted to mean that somehow the two covenants continue to exist side-by-side even today, as some Christian theologians believe.This passage also poses a problem for the view that “heaven and earth” means the temple. The implication in that case would be that the disappearance of the temple has no effect on the continued existence of the covenant of law.

Even the predominantly Jewish church in Jerusalem only put a few dietary restrictions on Gentile Christians. And that was specifically in order not to offend the Jews they lived among, not because they felt that these ordinances should be observed since the Old Covenant was still in effect (Acts 15:20-21).

The Temple was the center of Israel’s world and they even referred to it as “heaven and earth.” This supposed fact has been often quoted by preterists to prove that Peter's mention of the destruction of heaven and earth in 2 Peter 3 only refers to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But it is wholly without proof. At the most, some post-biblical writings such as those of Josephus suggest that the temple was a symbolic representation of creation. I have discussed this issue in much more length elsewhere (see post on Matthew 5:17-20).

It seems to me that this letter and the previous one are dealing with events that were to happen soon after their writing. (1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:3). While there are lessons to be learned for us, the letter was written to first century people who would understand its purposes. First, you are taking a much more limited view of the word “soon” than is intended. As one proof of this, read Revelation 20-21 (mostly written in the future tense) with its view of the New Jerusalem. It would be quite a stretch to say that any of this has already taken place. And yet at the end Jesus says twice that he is coming soon. Since virtually no one believes that Revelation was written before 70 AD, that means that the language in those chapters (which borrows heavily from Day of the Lord passages in the OT) cannot refer to the Romans destroying Jerusalem, but has to refer to events still future to us. But still, Jesus said 2,000 years ago that he is coming “soon.” We can either believe that Jesus is a liar, totally clueless, or that we should look more closely into the concept behind the Greek word “soon.” I would prefer to take the last option.

I know that you have not been swayed by the opinions of Greek scholars when they explain that this word can mean (1) the initiation of an action, but not necessarily its completion, (2) unexpectedly, (3) without a doubt, inevitably, or (4) in a speedy manner once it begins. But it is interesting to look at the English definition of the word since all translators use “soon” or “quickly” in key passages such as Revelation 1:1 and 22:20 to render the Greek tachys. Looking at seven different dictionaries, I see that there are two basic meanings of the English words “soon” and “quickly.”

The first is explained in terms such as “without undue time lapse,” “before long,” “within a short time period,” “shortly,” or “occurring within a relatively brief time period.” Even using that definition, Peter seems to be dealing with his critics' comments by explaining that (1) God's view of time is not the same as ours (2 Peter 3:8) and (2) even if there is a delay, it is not an “undue” one. (2 Peter 3:9). At this point, I think that you have an alternative explanation for the quote in verse 8 and have a problem with the reasoning in verse 9. How do you explain verse 8, and how do you make sense out of verse 9 (which obviously does need a little explanation to avoid the charge that it is a ridiculous statement to make)?

The second definition of the English word “soon” (and the preferred definition for “quickly”) is described using the following terms: in a prompt manner, speedily, without hesitation, easily, rapidly, lasting only a short time, at a fast speed, and occurring within a relatively brief time period. So you see that this meaning of the word says nothing regarding when the action will commence; it only refers to the fact that once initiated, the action will be accomplished within a short time span. And it is highly unlikely that the writers of these particular definitions were swayed by any prior theological commitments as you feel the Christian scholars of the Greek language are.

A similar argument could be made concerning Jesus' statement regarding his coming “like a thief in the night.” In I Thessalonians 5:2, Paul refers to the Day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night” but then goes on in verse 10 to explain that it may occur after his audience is dead.

As you have pointed out, it is a valid principle of prophetic interpretation that the nearest reasonable fulfillment is to be preferred over more remote events. The key word here is “reasonable.” The overwhelmingly apocalyptic language referring to world-wide events here, however, is hard to construe as referring to the destruction of one city. This is especially true since “the Day of the Lord” (and its equivalent phrases) elsewhere in the OT and NT always pertains to earthshaking events and final judgment on the whole earth (see below).

The “Day of the Lord” has always meant destruction.

This is simply not true, especially concerning the fate of the Jews. Yes, the disobedient individuals and nations will be appropriately judged. But the Day of the Lord also has a positive side to it:

Malachi 4 says there will be judgment on the wicked but also rejoicing for the righteous.

Malachi 3:17 says that those who revere the LORD will be his “special possession on the day when I act.”

Isaiah 2 says that “on that day...the LORD of hosts has a day” when Israel will be punished, but also all the foreign nations as well.

Isaiah 34 says that when “the LORD has a day of vengeance” God will be enraged against all the nations.

Joel 3 (especially v. 14) says that the “Day of the LORD” means peace and prosperity for Israel and its people while the foreign nations become desolate.

Obadiah 1:15 says “The Day of the LORD is near against all the nations.” During that time, Jerusalem will be a place of refuge.

Zephaniah 3 describes the events “on that day.” God will arise as a witness on all the nations (v.8). By contrast, Jerusalem does not need to worry because God will remove all disaster from it (v. 16).

Zechariah 12 repeatedly uses the phrase “on that day” when a siege of Jerusalem will be turned around and God will defeat her enemies. Victory will belong to Judah.

Zechariah 13 says that on “a day coming for the LORD,” God will be king of the whole earth and living waters will flow from Jerusalem.

Romans 2:5-11 says that “the day of wrath” will also mean glory and honor and immortality to some.

I Peter 2:12 says that on “the day of visitation” the Gentiles will glorify God.

I John 4:17 says that on “the day of judgment” the believers will have boldness and no fear.

I Corinthians 1:7-8 says that believers will be blameless “on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I Corinthians 5:5 says that good work will be brought to completion by the day of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:10 expresses the prayer that his audience might be pure and blameless in the day of Christ.

Philippians 2:16 – Paul says that he can boast on the day of Christ.

II Thessalonians 2:2 warns that we should not be shaken by news that the Day of the Lord is already here. Paul says that first the man of lawlessness must appear with accompanying supernatural signs.

Revelation 11:18 says that “the time of God's wrath” is also a time for rewarding God's servants.

The key source prophecies in 2 Peter 3 are Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 63-66, and Daniel 9. These are rather unusual texts to reference since not one of them uses the phrase “Day of the Lord.” The closest is Isaiah 63:4 which uses the phrase “Day of my vengeance,” in the context of the defeat of Edom. Deuteronomy 32 describes how God first thought to punish Israel (v. 1-25) but changed his mind and decided to punish their enemies instead (vv. 26-27). Isaiah 28 has as its background the conflict of Israel with Assyria in the 700's BC. The following chapter contains a prediction of Sennacherib's unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem in 701. Daniel 9 most likely refers to Antiochus defiling the temple during the Greek occupation since the specific details outlined in the subsequent chapters can be lined up almost exactly with historical events during Antiochus' reign.

Not one of those texts can be construed to predict a future destruction of material creation.

That is because you are only quoting passages which have little direct bearing on the Day of the Lord. Consider instead the following more pertinent texts:

Isaiah 13 refers specifically to the Day of the Lord. In that chapter it is said that God and his weapons will come “to destroy the whole earth,” the stars will not shine and the sun and moon will be dark, the earth will be shaken out of its place, and the whole earth will be made desolate.

Isaiah 34:4 says that on the Lord's “day of vengeance,” the host of heaven shall rot away and the skies will roll up like a scroll.

Joel 2:10 says that on the Day of the Lord, the sun and moon will be darkened and there will be no stars.

Zephaniah 3 says that “on that day...all the earth will be consumed.”

Zechariah 13 says “a day is coming for the Lord” in which the whole geography of Jerusalem will be changed, and there will be continual daytime with no night.

That is just in the OT. In the NT we have the following:

Hebrews 12:26-29 says that God has promised to remove all created things with fire to replace them with an eternal kingdom.

Revelation 6:12-17 says that on “the great day of their wrath” the sky will vanish and all the mountains and islands will be moved. Isaiah 34 is quoted here.

Revelation 16:14-21 says that on “the great day of God the Almighty” demonic spirits will appear to the kings of the whole world, violent earthquakes will destroy the cities of the earth, and mountains and islands will disappear.

And of course John uses Isaiah's phrase “New Heaven and Earth” in Revelation 21:1 to usher in the vision of the new creation.

Peter’s promise of a new heaven and earth is a direct reference to Isaiah 65 which would come at the Day of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 64.

Let me see if I am following your argument correctly. First you say that the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a judgment on the Jews. Now you are saying that it is also at that time that the new heaven and earth will be set up, as mentioned in Isaiah 65:17. However, the Isaiah 65 passage goes on to describe the New Heaven and Earth as containing a Jerusalem filled with joy with no weeping and where the longevity of man will be drastically increased. In addition, savage animals will no longer kill other animals to survive (basically a return to Eden). This isn't exactly the situation that I picture when I read of the destruction of Jerusalem. If you reword your statement to say that the new heaven and new earth will eventually come about due to the prior destruction of Jerusalem, then you will still have to deal with the timing issue. Isaiah 65:17 says that “I am about to create new heavens and a new earth.” We come back to the question of immanency and what it means in a biblical sense.

It seems to me that Peter’s description of the passing of the heavens and earth should be viewed as an apocalyptic prediction of the fall of the world of Judaism which would clear the way for the everlasting Kingdom of God - a kingdom of righteousness.

This is a rather startling statement, but I know of no biblical texts to back up this idea.  As explained above, there was no necessity for the temple to fall in order “clear the way” for anything since the way was already clear. It is beyond me to understand how the coming of a righteous kingdom needed that event to occur first. After all, it did not at all stop Judaism from continuing to exist or oppose Christianity up to the present day. And the fall of Jerusalem had little effect pro or con on the continuing spread of the Word throughout the Gentile world, which was already well underway by then.

Possible Synthesis of the Two Views

I stepped back for a minute from our back-and-forth bantering to realize that perhaps we are closer together in beliefs than we realize, especially in our interpretation of biblical prophecies.

You quoted some passages in Isaiah regarding judgment and applied them to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. My response was that one should look for the nearest fulfillments in time instead, which were referring to OT events that took place within a short time after the writings. Then I quoted a number of other OT prophecies that specifically mention the Day and describe it in rather earth-shaking terms. I said that these passages referred to Christ's Second Coming and the Day of Judgment. Your response was that there were much closer fulfillments to the time of writing of those prophecies. Lo and behold, we both are employing the exact same logic to opposite purposes.

What about the realization (well recognized among a number of prophetic “experts” from a wide variety of millennial positions) that although many OT and NT prophecies have an “immediate” partial fulfillment expressed in terms of poetic hyperbole, they may also point forward in time to an ultimate fulfillment at a later date where the language may be applied a little more literally? That would certainly explain why all the OT prophecies we both quoted can be interpreted equally to point to near events and distant events at the same time.

The fulfillment of the near event can even act as as sort of guarantee by God that the later event will take place also. We see these principles illustrated at least twice in the Book of Isaiah. In chapters 6-8, Isaiah gives the sign to the king that his enemies will be destroyed before the child of some unspecified young woman (or woman as yet unmarried) begins to grow up. The results are as Isaiah predicted. However, Isaiah 6:14 is quoted by NT authors as being fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus as a sign to Israel. Then there is Isaiah 38 in which Hezekiah is given the sign of the shadow on the sundial to indicate that he will recover from his illness and that then the city will be delivered from the Assyrians. Each event takes place in turn, with each fulfillment guaranteeing the truth of the next prophecy.

Of course, there is also the clearest example of foreshortened prophecy in Joel 2:28-32. Peter only quotes the first verses (28-29) on the Day of Pentacost as having been fulfilled. But he does not quote the following verses of the prophecy (30-32) because they haven't taken place by then, whether you apply those latter verses to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or to the Last Judgment. Just reading Joel alone would certainly give the idea that all of these events were going to take place one after the other in rapid succession.

So, getting back to 2 Peter 3, you see it as primarily referring to the 70 AD judgment on Israel. Perhaps you could you at least agree that just as the flood demonstrated God's judgment on humanity for its sins and set the precedent for judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD, that particular destruction by the Romans within a year or two of the writing was be a powerful lesson to Peter's audience that God will ultimately judge the sins of all mankind. In turn, although I feel that this chapter mainly refers to what is usually called the Last Judgment, I will admit that it is possible that Peter may also be alluding to even closer events that will be witnessed by his immediate audience which will presage a later and more worldwide judgment. In other words, we don't have to ultimately choose between one of the two options since we know that from past experience with OT prophecies, the meaning intended by God may not be exhausted by its application to the original audience, but may encompass further truths only fully appreciated by later readers.

II PETER (AND JUDE)

“This [2 Peter] is the most problematical of all the New Testament Epistles,” in Guthrie’s words, and was slow finding acceptance in the early church. Part of the problem is that most scholars, even conservative ones, consider that 2 Peter draws on the Epistle of Jude for much of its material (or that they both perhaps borrowed from the same source). The common language of these two letters has been confirmed by computer analysis.

Introduction

The genre of 2 Peter has been somewhat disputed. Neyrey (2 Peter, Jude) has demonstrated that it can be analyzed in the standard form of an ancient Greek or Roman letter. However, others treat it as only a nominal letter which is, in fact, “a farewell address and final testament.” In support of this, Peter does talk about his impending death in 1:14.

The two-fold purpose of the letter was “to admonish the church to be steadfast” (start and end of the letter) and “to warn it against deceivers” (middle section). In contrast, Neyrey says that the warm concluding words of the epistle “make it clear that the author is not primarily concerned to preach condemnation and destruction...What constitutes the real burden of the author is God’s grace and desire to save, as these have found expression in Jesus Christ.”

Perhaps the theme most highlighted by the letter is that of living in the “knowledge” (7x) of God and Jesus. Question: What does knowledge of God and Christ mean? Or what does it not mean? Green (2 Peter and Jude) explains that in the context of 2 Peter, true knowledge was different than what the false teachers claimed to have. “True knowledge of God and Christ produces grace and peace in the life; what is more, it produces holiness.”

1:3-15 

The familiar triad of faith (v. 5), hope (v. 4 – promises) and love (v. 7) appears in this passage.

1:8 There was an article in Christianity Today magazine years ago where the author stressed the idea 

that we cannot compare the lives of specific Christians with specific non-Christians since we all start 

out at different levels. We need to see if as Christians we are increasing in these virtues.

1:10-12 There is the same tension between assured salvation and the possibility of falling from grace 

that is clearly present in the Book of Hebrews.

1:14 Also see John 21:18-19 regarding the prediction of Peter's death.

1:16-21

1:16-18 There is an allusion to the transfiguration as in Matthew 17:4. See Peter's words there

 concerning "tents." The same Greek word appears in v. 13 as “body.”

1:19 There are two explanations to the first part of this verse: (1) We are more sure of the prophecy 

since we have witnessed it, or preferably (2) even though we heard the word, Scripture is more sure 

than that (a warning not to elevate personal experience over the Word).

Hold on to prophecy in Scripture until Christ's Second Coming.

Jude and 2 Peter 2

Jesus' family and his early ministry

Jesus grew up with brothers Joses, Simon, and Judas (or Jude) and unnamed sisters (Matthew 13:55). But the words “brother” and “sister” can on rare occasion refer to step-siblings (Joseph's children by a previous marriage) or even cousins. Mary at the cross is named as the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40) or the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56) so at least these two are biological sons of Mary. Jude was probably also, but we don't know for sure. Joseph, Jesus' “father,” had probably died when Jesus was relatively young so Jesus would have had to help support the family.

The only ministry mentioned in the Gospels before Jesus was 30 years old was his discussions with the scribes in the Temple when he was 12 years old (Luke 2). Jewish opponents of Christianity later accused him of practicing magic he picked up while in Egypt. The Koran and apocryphal gospels try to fill in our gaps about the time between childhood and when his ministry began. These include rather silly and improbable miracles. It is doubtful that Jesus had any sort of miraculous ministry before he was 30 since his brothers did not believe in him early on.

Reading Jude from the middle outward, the train of theological thought can be reconstructed as follows:

 

1. “(The) alternative of unbelief was there from the beginning and is nothing new.” However, God has reserved judgment for those who behave in such a godless manner

2. Although such men have now appeared in the midst of the believers, this is not an event that has caught God unawares, but was predicted long ago.

3. Therefore, as believers, contend with these false teachers for the faith while building yourselves up spiritually. Or as Neyrey puts it, “The faith may be delivered once for all, but the faithful must be loyal.”

4. You can, however, have complete confidence in this struggle since the same God who called you is equally able to keep you.

This short letter is filled with purposefully contrasting descriptions of the recipients (in the framework sections) and the false teachers (in the center section) :

Contrasts in Jude

Believers                Verses         Opponents/Scoffers         Verses

holy/holiness       3, 20, 24          godlessness                  4, 15, 18

await mercy       2, 21, 22-23       await judgment           4, 6, 9, 15

in fear                       23               fearlessness                       12

unblemished            24                defiled                          8, 12, 23

pray in Spirit           20             do not have Spirit                19

build up                   20                divide                               19

are saved                 25              are destroyed                    5, 11

honor God           24-25            challenge God                   4, 17

 

The Center Section of II Peter

1. Irrational creatures who revile others will be destroyed (2:10b-13a)

2. While reveling, they entice others (2:13b-14)

3. Biblical parallel: they are like Balaam (2:15-16)

1'. They are waterless springs who are reserved for darkness (2:17)

2'. They entice others with licentious passion (2:18)

3'. Biblical parallel: they are like dogs and pigs (2:19-22)

2 Peter and Jude

Assuming that Peter borrowed from Jude, some of the changes were made to balance the literary structure of his letter, but others were apparently made to shift the thematic emphasis of his letter:

a. The references to unnatural lust in Jude’s Sodom and Gomorrah story are omitted in 2 Peter since the emphasis in these and parallel verses is on the judgment itself, not on the various sins that led up to it.

b. Another difference between 2 Peter and Jude is evidenced in the former’s interest in those saved “as proof that God knows how to rescue the godly from the trial.” Thus, there are positive notices regarding Noah in 2 Peter 2:5 and Lot in 2:7-9.

c. Peter is also notable in leaving out all of Jude’s non-canonical references. This is perfectly understandable in light of Peter’s emphasis on adherence to true prophecy and apostolic knowledge. Also, Peter (unlike Jude) is probably writing to a Gentile audience who would not be aware of the Jewish writings that Jude is quoting from.

By contrast, Peter uses of the word "tartarus" in 2:4. In Greek mythology, this was the lowest and worst part of hell reserved for superhuman beings who rebelled against God. So he quotes from Greek mythology while Jude quotes from books that are not in the Bible. Does that mean that each author accepts those sources as authoritative, and we should also? Read the Jude passages while you are thinking.

Jude 9: This comes from a Jewish tradition, perhaps found in the Testament of Moses, that when Michael came to bury Moses' body, Satan tried to claim him because Moses was a murderer.

Jude 14-15. This is found in I Enoch 1:9 (a collection of stories dating from 3^rd to 1^st cent. BC).

Paul quotes from pagan poets when talking to a Roman audience (“to the Greek I became as a Greek”).

This is similar to a preacher using a sermon example of a fictional character from a book or movie.

Even if Jude's particular examples are historically true, that doesn't mean the rest of those books is.

2 Peter 2:1-10a

2:1: A picture of false prophets is painted in the OT. They were interested in personal popularity (Jeremiah 6:13-14), greedy for gain (Micah 3:11), and drunken and false teachers (Isaiah 28:7). Many of the same characteristics are seen in the teachers Peter warns against. One commentator has said, “Their teaching was flattery; their ambitions were financial; their lives were dissolute; their conscience was dulled; and their aim was deception.” That sort of warning also came from Christ (Matthew 24:11), and Paul gives Timothy the same warning against them.

The future tense is used, but later verses make it clear that the false teachers are already active (perhaps a paraphrase of Matthew 24:11). The verb “introduce” has two overtones in the Greek: “to bring in alongside of” and “to introduce secretly.”

“Heresies” in Greek originally meant chosen beliefs or schools of philosophy. In Acts, the term is used to describe various Jewish sects such as the Pharisees. By at least 110 AD it had come to have its present meaning – a belief purposely chosen in place of the truth.

A. Some define heresy as a teaching that has just enough truth to make it believable (less than the truth). Examples:

Truth: Jesus was a prophet of God. Islam: Jesus was only a prophet.

Truth: Jesus was wholly human. Jehovah Witnesses: Jesus was only human.

B. Others define heresy as a truth taken too far (more than the truth). Examples:

Truth: Christians are one with Christ and are sons of God. Latter Day Saints: Elite believers are equal to Christ and will become gods of their own planets.

Truth: sin and evil have been conquered by Christ's death on the cross and have no more ultimate power over us. Christian Science: sin and evil have no meaning at all; they don't exist. We just need to correct our way of thinking and they will go away. Scientology has similar beliefs.

Denial of Christ may mean denial by the life they led. “Master” is only applied to Jesus twice in the NT (usually kyrios, Lord, is used). The metaphor used here is that of the redemption of slaves. They recognized the liberty and freedom of a Christian, but not the price that Christ paid for it. This is an example of cheap grace (I Corinthians 6:19-20).

It doesn't necessarily mean that the false teachers were saved and then lost. It depends on one's view of Christs atonement on the cross. Limited Atonement says that Christ died only for those whom he would later save. Unlimited Atonement says that Christ died for all, but one must appropriate this salvation. As one commentator said, “Christ's death is sufficient for all, but is efficient only for those who believe.” This verse is a strong argument for Unlimited Atonement.

“Sudden” is the same word Peter applies to his own impending death in 1:14.

2:2: “Many will follow” – For some reason, deviant teaching is always attractive to a large number of people. Witness the great success of the novel The Da Vinci Code about Christ having married Mary Magdalene and had a child by her.

“Licentiousness” is a strong word for reckless and hardened immorality. It is the opposite of the “way of truth.” That latter phrase occurs nowhere else in the NT even though “the way” was a common term for Christianity, as seen in Acts.

“Reviled” is a Greek word from which we get “blaspheme.” Here it means shamed and dishonored.

John Calvin notes that defections from the faith have the capacity to harm our own faith; so Peter warns in advance that this will happen and should not surprise us. The minister who baptized me when I was a teenager ran away with a deacon's wife. This disillusioned many in our congregation who had almost idolized him.

2:3: “Exploit” has commercial implication. “False words” = plastos = molded words. One commentator points out that language was meant for clear communication, not a concealing of the truth and misleading others. This is the third time in three verses that “destruction” is used.

A comparison with Jude 7-8 suggests that sodomy may be in mind here. “Authority” could refer to (a) angelic hierarchy (see Jude 8), (b) local church authority, or (c) the authority of Christ. Most commentators suggest the last explanation.

2:4: This is a very obscure passage and there has been much speculation as to what it means. The parallel in Jude 6 says that these angels left their proper place. There are two possibilities: the angels of Genesis 6:1-2 or those who followed Satan in his rebellion against God (Revelation 12:7-8). There is some textual variation in the manuscripts at this point. Some read sirois (pits) while others read seirais (chains). It may refer to present torment or to a holding for future punishment only. The former has support in Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). These two passages are about the only references in the NT to the intermediate state of the unrighteous dead.

2:5: Peter in I Peter 3:20 had earlier mentioned the saving of eight people from the Flood. “Herald (or preacher) of righteousness” – It is not specifically mentioned in Genesis that Noah preached (although the idea is present in extrabiblical Jewish writings) so it probably meant it was through the example of his life. In this same manner, we are all called to be preachers.

2:6: The parallel is found in Jude 7, and the same order of water and then fire is followed in 2 Peter 3:5-7). “Turning to (or covered with) ashes” is only used here in the NT. The rare Greek word occurs in the ancient historians' accounts of Pompeii being destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD. “To extinction” may or may not belong to the original text; the evidence is divided. The NIV omits this phrase.

2:7-8: The Genesis account does not seem to picture Lot as a particularly righteous man, but he was certainly “a good man” in comparison to the society he lived in. At least he still had the capacity to be shocked by the behavior around him, something we are in danger of losing today.

These examples of God's protection of the righteous in the past prepare us for the punch line in verse 9.

2:9a: This verse concludes the sentence begun in verse 4 with three “if” clauses: one of the longest sentences in the whole NT. The preposition “from” denotes not immediate escape away from, but out of the midst of, trial.

There is evenly divided textual evidence for plural “trials” (temptations in general) and singular “trial.” The latter could refer to events of the final tribulation (Revelation 3:10) or the Last Judgment itself (I Corinthians 3:13). Whatever the case, we can have confidence that the Lord will help us through it.

In conclusion, consider I Corinthians 10:13, keeping in mind that the same Greek word can be translated as either temptation or trial: “God is faithful and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

2 Peter 3:1-18

1-10 deals with scoffers who say, “The world has always been around so it will never end, at least not in

in my lifetime.” That is probably an understandable attitude. We judge everything by our own 

experience and past history. But the future is unknown. In Hebrew thinking, the past was pictured as 

before us and the future behind our backs.

 

3:11-13 Christians should have a different attitude and should expectantly wait for the coming day, no 

matter how long it takes. We are impatient, which is why so many books predicting the imminent 

coming of Christ are sold. We need to be prepared for the long haul.

 

3:14-18 In the meanwhile, we are to live at peace in him, and have patience.

Peter then mentions Paul's writings as “scripture” and even admits that some of Paul's statements are 

difficult to understand and can be twisted by those who are ignorant and unstable. It is sometimes hard 

to distinguish between these two tpes: are the people really that ignorant or are they just so unstable in 

the faith that they totally lack spiritual discernment? 

 

3:17-18 He ends by saying that we should not have to worry since (a) we are forewarned and (b) we 

should be growing in knowledge of God and Christ. We are never too old to learn more.