Tag: faith

1 PETER 1:3-12 – COMMENTS

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

Posted on 14th Nov 202218th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Reading: Acts 26:1-32

PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE KING HEROD AGRIPPA II

Luke’s account of Paul’s ‘apologia’ (defence) in Acts 26 consists of a speech by Paul and an interruption by Festus, followed by a closing dialogue between Paul and Agrippa.

26:1-23 Paul’s defence speech.

26:24-26 Festus’ interruption.

26:27-29 Closing dialogue.

26:1-12 Paul addresses the first charge.

After Agrippa invited him to speak Paul stretched out his hand in ancient oratorical style and ‘answered for himself’ (26:1). The same verb – ‘I shall answer for myself’ – occurs in verse 2. This verb is apologéomai, meaning: to defend or plead for oneself. Although the noun is not used in Acts chapter 26 the usual description of this speech as a ‘defence’ before Agrippa is justified because of Paul’s use of the verb ‘to defend’.

Paul began by courteously addressing Agrippa and saying that he considered himself blessed to be making his defence before him because the king was a recognized expert on Jewish affairs. Paul refers to ‘all the things’ of which he ‘is being accused’ by the Jews. These accusations are the two sets of charges that have been previously identified:

A) That he was anti-Jewish, teaching against the law and the people and profaning the Temple (21:28-29; 25:8).

B) Political agitation and disturbance of the Roman peace (24:5; 25:8).

Paul maintained, and continued to maintain before Agrippa (26:8), that in reality the first set of charges boiled down to the question of belief in resurrection. He explained that he was well-known in Jerusalem where he had lived from his youth. He was famous as a Pharisee, following the rules of the strictest sect in Judaism. The Jews who had been accusing him knew very well that there was no chance of him desecrating the temple or preaching against Judaism. That, according to Paul, was not the real issue. He was being judged for ‘the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers.’

Agrippa would have been aware that ‘the promise’ was the Messianic hope. Paul later clarified (26:8) that this hope included the resurrection of Jesus as proof that he really was the promised Messiah (26:23). It had been promised to the patriarchs (26:6) and been predicted by the prophets and in the torah (26:23). The strange thing was that the Jews, who had this ‘hope’, did not accept Paul’s message that ‘the hope’ had been fulfilled.

Although Jews, of all people, ought to have recognized this fulfilment Paul himself had made the same mistake. He was a Pharisee, and therefore theoretically a believer in resurrection, but had not accepted the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul had been so strongly opposed to the idea that he actively undertook an obsessive personal campaign of persecution against Christian believers. Chapter 26:9-11 details his involvement.

Thus, in this first part of his speech (26:4-12), Paul addressed the charge that he was anti-Jewish by outlining his past life as a strict Jew and by asserting that the resurrection (of Jesus) is compatible with Jewish messianic teaching. By using such expressions as ‘mine own nation’ (v. 4), ‘our religion’ (v. 5), ‘our fathers’ (v.6), and ‘our twelve tribes’ Paul emphasized that he still considered himself to be a Jew.

26:13-23 Paul addresses the second charge.

Paul’s response to the second charge (that he was a political revolutionary) was to ‘tell the story of his conversion’, explain his mission and give a potted history of his evangelistic activity up to that point in time (‘unto this day’ v. 22). Verses 13-23 may be divided into three sections:

A Christophany (13-15)

A Commission (15-18)

A Change (19-23)

A CHRISTOPHANY – OUTSIDE DAMASCUS (vv. 13-15)

Just as Luke records three accounts of the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-44; 11:5-17; 15:7-11) in the Acts of the Apostles so he also includes three accounts (9: 9-19; 22: 4-16; 26:12-18) of what we commonly refer to as ‘Paul’s ‘conversion’. This is the third of the three. Paul himself did not use the term ‘conversion.’ What Paul relates was by no means a typical experience and strictly speaking not even a conversion (since he did not begin to worship a different God or leave his ancestral faith). Strangely, however, Paul later wrote that it was a ‘pattern’ (1 Tim 1:16) for ensuing conversions. He referred to the Damascus Road experience five times in his epistles (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; 2 Cor 4:6; Gal 1:11-17; Phil 3:6-8).

Here Paul relates a vivid story which includes exciting details of:

The Journey: Paul travelling to Damascus with authority from the Jewish religious leaders to persecute Christians (26:12).

The Light: A light at noon that was brighter than the sun (26:13).

The Voice: A voice asking why he kept persecuting him (Jesus). The voice addressed him by name in Aramaic: ‘Saoúl, Saoúl’. This is the third of three names for the apostle in the Greek text of the book of Acts. The other names are Saúlos (which is a transliteration of his Hebrew name Sha’ūl) and the Hellenistic name Paúlos. (N.B. Contrary to what one might think the name change from Saul to Paul was not due to his conversion but occurs at Acts 13:9 when Paul was in Cyprus before the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus. The name change signified the change in priority from Jews to Gentiles.)

The risen Jesus in heaven quoting a well-known ancient Greek proverb: ‘It is hard to kick against the goads’ (Euripides. Bacc. 794-95; Aeschylus, Agam 1624; Julian, Or. 8.246B; Pindar, Pythian Odes 2.94)

A COMMISSION – TO EVANGELIZE JEWS AND GENTILES (vv. 15-18)

Addressing the issue of stirring up political unrest, Paul told Agrippa that Jesus had confronted him in a vision outside Damascus in order to appoint (procheirízomai) him ‘a minister’ (hupērétēs) and a witness (márturos).’

These terms would have been familiar to Festus and Agrippa as there would have been several of each in any courtroom. Note that an ‘assistant’ (minister) worked with documents (i.e. handling and delivering them e.g. Luke 4:20). John Mark is called this in Acts 13:5.

Paul claimed that since the Christophany his sole motivation in life had been obedience to Christ’s instructions which had been accompanied by a promise of deliverance from hostile Jews and Gentiles. Paul had been given a special commission to go to the Gentiles in order:

to open their eyes
to turn them from darkness to light
to turn them from the power of Satan to God
that they might receive forgiveness of sins
that they might obtain a place among them who are made holy (set apart to do God’s will) through faith in Jesus.

A CHANGE – IN PAUL’S LIFE (vv. 19-23)

Paul’s told Agrippa that his life had dramatically changed as a result of the vision of a heavenly being and gave a short account of his activities as a preacher and of the message he preached. That he was preoccupied with preaching the gospel across a wide geographical area answered the second charge levied against him; that he was a political agitator and disturber of the peace (25:8). He was motivated by the heavenly vision, not by political fervour.

Just like that of the earlier Christians in 1:8 there are four geographic divisions in Paul’s programme of outreach. His differs slightly in that his ministry began in Damascus where he was just after his conversion. He preached there (9:19-20) and in Jerusalem (9:28-29) but Acts does not record a preaching tour of Judaea, although such could possibly fit into 15:3-4. The summary of Paul’s missionary career in Galatians 1 gives no details of a period of ministry in Judaea but rather states (Gal 1:22) that Paul was personally unknown to the churches in Judaea. In an interesting article Lewis (1899, pp. 244-248) suggests that Paul’s ministry was not in person but through writing the Letter to the Hebrews during his time of imprisonment in Caesarea and arranging for it to be circulated throughout Judaea. Lewis identifies similarities in the thought and language of Acts 26 and the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul’s missionary activity began with Jews and then extended to the Gentile pagans.

Paul’s message was that his hearers were to repent, turn to God and do works ‘meet for repentance’. The idea is that their repentance could be viewed as sincere if it resulted in changed lives.

26:21 It was ‘for these causes’ that Jews sought to kill Paul. This might be a reference to what Paul had outlined in vv.16-20 but is more likely a reference to the charges that had been brought against him. In any case, with help from God, he had continued with his mission right up to that present time and was convinced that what he preached to everyone (both small and great) was nothing less, or more, than the message of the Old Testament (the prophets and Moses). He then summarizes this message in v. 23:

That the Messiah was to suffer
That the Messiah would be the first to rise from the dead
That the Messiah would show light to Israel and the Gentiles

Note that the unusual order ‘the prophets and Moses’ is the order of the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 1:1; 3:2), as is ‘small and great’ (Heb 8:11).

FESTUS’ INTERRUPTION (vv. 24-26)

Although Paul’s speech had come to a close the outburst by Festus is usually treated as an interruption. This is because Paul had addressed his remarks to King Agrippa (26:4-23) but it was the Roman procurator Festus who spoke up loudly, telling Paul that great learning had driven him mad. Obviously Festus had been listening carefully but did not understand about resurrection. There had already been a hint of this in Acts 25:19. Festus reckoned that lit ‘many writings’ (possibly a reference to the Old Testament) had driven Paul insane.

Paul courteously addressed Festus as ‘most noble’ and assured him of his sanity and that the words he spoke were truthful and sound. Referring to Agrippa who had a good understanding of the Jewish religion (26:3) Paul said that the King knew that the death and resurrection of Jesus and associated events were public knowledge (‘not done in a corner’) and thus true and verifiable.

CLOSING DIALOGUE (vv. 27-29)

Turning from indirect to direct speech Paul called upon Agrippa as an expert witness and as one who knew that the prophets had prophesied the death and resurrection of the Messiah to confirm his belief in those prophecies.

‘King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.’

Unfortunately Agrippa sidestepped the question with a frivolous and humorous comment: ‘Soon you will convince me to play (theatrical term) the Christian’. Since it was clear that Agrippa had not come to faith in Christ Paul had the last word and said that he wished that all those present were like himself, apart from the chains. Barrett (2002, p. 393) comments: ‘Paul’s desire to make Christians applies to the least and to the greatest, to the king himself. Paul wishes for all his hearers the election, the call and the commission he himself has.’

At that point King Agrippa, Festus, Bernice and their legal advisers rose and left. Luke reports that as they talked together about the day’s proceedings Agrippa spoke positively of Paul and explained to Festus that had Paul not already appealed to Caesar he could have been released. The New Testament has nothing further to say about Festus or Agrippa.

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

General

‘EBENEZER’

Posted on 21st Dec 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Closing message on our last Sunday with our church before moving to live elsewhere.

1 Samuel 7:12 ‘EBENEZER’

‘Then Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.’ 1 Samuel 7:12

There is a certain form of words occurring throughout our Bible which makes a very interesting study. I’ll mention the following example references:

Deuteronomy chapters 31-34 – the speaker is Moses.

Joshua chapters 23-24 – the speaker is Joshua.

1 Samuel chapter 12 – the speaker is Samuel.

1 Kings chapter 2 and also 1 Chronicles chapters 28 -29 – the speaker is David,

Luke chapter 22 and also John chapters 13-17 – the speaker is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts chapter 20 – the speaker is the apostle Paul.

You may have already realized that in these chapters we have what scholars term ‘THE FAREWELL ADDRESS.’

You will be relieved to know, although this is our last Sunday here, that I am not about to deliver a long farewell speech.

Instead I would like to leave this verse from 1 Samuel with you, not only because it is my favourite Bible verse but also because we have experienced, and can testify to, its truth. Today we look back over the 32 years since we walked in the door of the old building one Sunday morning in September 1989, with two small children in tow and not knowing anyone in this part of the world.

Ebenezer is an unusual name. Personally, I don’t know anyone called Ebenezer. Unless familiar with the Bible most people would probably recall it as the name of the miser Scrooge in Charles Dicken’s story, ‘A Christmas Carol’ – but Ebenezer Scrooge bears no relation to the Ebenezer of the Bible because:

The biblical Ebenezer was not a person, it was a place.

The biblical Ebenezer was not a scrooge, it was a stone.

The biblical Ebenezer was not a miser, it was a marker.

In 1 Samuel chapters 4-7 you can read for yourselves the historical background to Samuel’s erection of this stone monument. Sufficient to say that for a long period of time the ancient Israelites forgot God and had consequently suffered defeat at the hands of their neighbours, the Philistines. These enemies captured the Ark of the Lord, which was gone for twenty years (7:2). After a national turning to the Lord, however, and intercession on the part of Samuel, the Philistines were defeated. Samuel then set up the memorial stone as a reminder to the people of the faithfulness of God to those who trust in him alone.

As we review more than three decades spent here:

EBENEZER REMINDS US OF THE PAST

Looking back we recognise God’s help and protection in our lives. There have been many good times and some difficult times; there has been employment and also unemployment; there has been health and there has been sickness. However, we can honestly say: ‘Ebenezer …. Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.’ Had we set up a memorial stone for every occasion on which the Lord helped us there would be a long trail of gratitude behind us, stretching back over thirty-two years. As well as reminding us of the past…

EBENEZER DIRECTS US TO THE PRESENT

‘Hitherto’ means ‘up to now’ and that, of course, includes the present time. We can therefore be confident that the Lord who has helped us in the past is now helping us in the present. The One who HAS helped us is STILL helping us. As we undergo the stress of uprooting our lives and moving to one of the other countries in the UK ‘Ebenezer’ reminds us to be thankful for what the Lord is doing now.

Ebenezer reminds us of the past.

Ebenezer directs us to the present, but also:

EBENEZER POINTS US TO THE FUTURE

When we get to a certain point in time and can still say ‘hitherto’ that means that we haven’t reached the end yet. The Lord has more to do, for us and with us, and he will help us until our lives on earth come to a close. I suppose that as we contemplate the future we can change the ‘hitherto hath the Lord helped us’ to ‘henceforth the Lord will help us’.

Let me publicly pay tribute to all the members of this church (to the many who have already gone to be with the Lord, and to you all who remain) and thank you for your fellowship, your friendship, your kindness to us and your confidence in us as we have fulfilled our various roles and responsibilities in this assembly.

We brought up our children here and are thankful that, at a young age, both of them placed their trust in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation. Thank you for providing a loving and caring atmosphere in which we could raise our family and for being a positive Christian influence upon young lives.

We ask you to pray for us as we assume a nomadic lifestyle for a few months, that the Lord will guide us as to where we ought to settle down and live in retirement and that we might be of help in whatever assembly of Christians we meet with.

I trust that you all (individually and as an assembly of believers) will continue to experience the Lord’s help and blessing and be able to say, as we can: ‘Ebenezer …. hitherto hath the Lord helped us.’

Exposition

1 John 2:18-23

Posted on 7th Nov 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

THE DECEPTIONS OF THE LAST HOUR

Another reason John gives for writing this letter was that of end-time deceptions. He wanted his readers to be aware of false teachers who would be marked by the characteristics of antichrist.

[18] Having mentioned in v.17 that the world ‘passeth away’ John begins to think about the End.

‘last hour’ (éschatos hṓra) Some tend to overthink this expression and assign it to the long time period between Christ’s Ascension and Second Coming (others might say something similar, like: ‘between Pentecost and the Rapture’). How would the first readers/hearers of this letter have understood these words? They, like John, would have assumed that the eschatological climax of the ages was imminent.

What caused John to think that the End was near? He himself answers that question: ‘now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the ‘last time.’

The word ‘antichrist’ (antíchristos) meaning ‘against Christ’ occurs only in the epistles of John (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7). The appearance of false teachers and false Christs had been predicted by Jesus himself in Mt 24:4-5, 24-25.

[19] ‘They went out from us’ Note: ‘They’ and ‘us’. The false teachers had defected from the fellowship of the apostles. As regards doctrine, there had been a rift between them and the apostles. ‘Us’ is most likely an apostolic first person plural pronoun (see also 1:1; 4:6). It is likely that as the false teachers travelled around they claimed an association with the apostles. John emphasizes that no such link existed. For John, the fact that these people had left the true faith showed what they were really like.

[20] ‘but ye’ The ‘you’ of vv. 21-22 contrasts with the ‘they’ of v. 19. John’s readers were faithful because they had ‘received an unction (chrísma) from the Holy One’. This may be an allusion to the anointing of the Levitical priests (Ex 40:15). If so, the main idea is that when a priest was anointed it was with the presumption that his ministry for God would continue for the remainder of his life. The ‘unction’ that John’s readers had received is mentioned again twice in v. 27, where it is clear that the reference is to a person.

‘The Holy One’ This is Jesus Christ (see Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34; Jn 6:69; Acts 3:14; Rev 3:7).

As a result of the unction they ‘know (understand) all things.’ (For use of the word ‘know’ (eídō) in 1 John see also: 2:11, 21 (2x), 29; 3:2, 5, 14, 15; 5:13, 15 (2x), 18, 19, 20)

[21] John tactfully tells them that he has written to them precisely because they know the truth (Jer 31:34; Jn 6:45), that because of the unction they already have a good grasp of truth i.e. about Jesus Christ. They will not be caught out by the lies that false teachers were spreading about the Person of Christ.

[22-23] The false teachers were liars because they denied that Jesus was the Messiah, i.e the One sent by God to be the Saviour (Jn 4: 29, 42; 20:31). Having defined the lie John then labels those who propagate that lie as antichrists. To deny the Son is tantamount to denying the Father who sent him (4:10) and who bore witness to him (5:9-10).

THE TEN IMPERATIVES IN 1 JOHN

Exposition

1 John 2:15-17

Posted on 22nd Oct 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

We have previously noticed that in the section 2:12-27 the author tells his first readers precisely why he has written this letter to them. The first reason, given in 2:12-14, is their spiritual state. Now, in 2:15-17, we have John’s second reason for writing: because of the enticements of the world.

THE ENTICEMENTS OF THE WORLD

No matter how good their spiritual state might be John was aware that the danger of worldliness was ever present. He therefore warns them to beware of it.

[15] A COMMAND

Rather than just offer one or two helpful suggestions John issues a firm command: ‘love not the world neither the things that are in the world’. This is the first of ten imperatives in 1 John. See the ten listed at:

THE TEN IMPERATIVES IN 1 JOHN

Although the ‘world’ (kósmos) can refer to people (e.g. John 3:16) here it seems to refer to the world system. Kósmos carries the idea of order or arrangement.

Lambert Dolphin makes the following useful comments on ‘the world:

‘The “world-system” involves a concern for external appearances more than inner content and quality. As used in the New Testament, the world does not refer to nature, but to the world-system, to society and human culture. The world system is outwardly religious, scientific, cultured and elegant. Inwardly it seethes with national and commercial rivalries.’

Much is said about the world in 1 John. See 2:2, 16-17; 3:1, 13; 4:3-5, 9, 14, 17; 5:4, 19.

[15] A CONCLUSION

‘If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.’

If a professing Christian is wholly taken up with love for the world John would conclude that such a person is not a genuine believer at all, for this behaviour is incompatible with love for God.

[16] A CHARACTERIZATION

Everything that is in the world system does not come from the Father. This system of values, goals and ethics excludes God and is opposed to God (5:19).

John identifies three elements othat characterize worldliness:

a) ‘The lust of the flesh’. Lusts (desires or cravings) of the flesh refers to human bodily appetites.

b) ‘The lust of the eyes’. This would refer to the human tendency to want what we see. We are naturally covetous and acquisitive.

c) ‘The pride of life’. This is a reminder of human showiness and the wish to impress others with one’s own importance.

The world encourages and caters to these perspectives. N.B. Some see the sin of Eve (Gen 3:6) as illustrating these three elements of worldiness: ‘the tree was good for food’, ‘it was pleasant to the eyes’, ‘a tree to be desired to make one wise’.

[17] A CONFIRMATION

John observes that worldiness is a craving for things that will soon pass away and confirms that whoever does the will of God will ‘live’ (ménō, abide, remain) forever. The idea of ‘abiding’ is that of living in fellowship with God. Such a life is viewed as never really coming to an end.

THE TEN IMPERATIVES IN 1 JOHN

Exposition

THE TEN IMPERATIVES IN 1 JOHN

Posted on 17th Oct 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

1. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. 2:15

2. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. 2:24

3. Abide in him. 2:27

4. Abide in him. 2:28

5. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, 3:1

6. Let no man deceive you. 3:7

7. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 3:13

8. Believe not every spirit. 4:1

9. Try the spirits. 4:1

10. Keep yourselves from idols. 5:21

Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2)

Posted on 27th Aug 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

READING: ACTS chapters 21-25

THE PREQUEL TO PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE KING AGRIPPA

THE ( LEGAL) BACKGROUND

After completing his third missionary journey Paul made his way to Phoenicia, landing at Tyre. He spent seven days with the Christians there before sailing down the coast to Ptolomais, a port near Caesarea Maritima. He spent a day with the Christians before travelling to Caesarea, where he stayed at Philip’s house. There a prophet, Agabus, foretold Paul’s troubles at Jerusalem. Although the Christians tried to persuade Paul not to venture to Jerusalem he would not be deterred (Acts 21:1-16). The opportunity to to preach to the large crowd of Jews from near and far who would gather there for the Festival of Pentecost was too good to be missed.

The Jerusalem Christians suggested that Paul ought to display conformity to his identity as a Jew by going through the rite of purification. This he did, probably in accordance with his principle set out in 1 Cor 9:22, paying for himself and four other men (21:18-26). While there Paul was noticed by Jews from Asia Minor (probably hardliners from Ephesus) who had earlier seen Trophimus from Ephesus in Jerusalem with him and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple. They incited the crowd to physically attack Paul. The uproar was such that the Roman military intervened to quell the riot.

The Jews complained that Paul had taken a Greek into a section of the temple that was out of bounds to non-Jews but then stated the real problem as him teaching against the Jewish people, the torah and the temple (20: 28-29). The Roman authorities gave Paul leave to address the quietened crowd which listened attentively to his story of conversion up until he said that he had been sent to take the gospel to the Gentiles (22:21-23). Again there was another loud commotion as the Jews called for Paul’s death. The Roman commander, who may not have understood Paul’s speech to the crowd if spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic, wished to flog Paul in order to get the truth out of him but discovered that he could not do so as that would have violated Paul’s rights as a Roman citizen. He therefore commanded that Paul appear before the Sanhedrin so that the charges against him might be clarified (22:30).

Paul, knowing that the Sanhedrin was composed of Pharisees and Sadducees, shouted that he was a Pharisee and was being tried for the hope of the resurrection. He thus divided the council on this theological point (the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection) and the meeting was halted with no resolution to the problem of the charges, which Paul claimed had changed from teaching against the people, the law and the temple to the question of resurrection. The Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, therefore decided to send Paul for formal investigation by the Procurator, Antonius Felix. Details of a Jewish plot to kill Paul were revealed to the Roman authorities by Paul’s nephew with the result that Paul was quickly transferred to Caesarea, the seat of Roman government in Judaea.

Five days later the trial before Felix commenced. The High Priest Ananias and some other members of the Sanhedrin attended and were represented by a lawyer named Tertullus who claimed that Paul, as well as opposing matters associated with the Jewish religion, was a revolutionary who incited political opposition to Rome. Paul, while defending himself, stated in 24:17: ‘Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.’ Felix, who was well-known to be a corrupt official, did not find Paul guilty of the charges but, having heard Paul mention a large sum of money, neither did he release him. Paul remained imprisoned for two years at Caesarea, during which Felix interviewed him several times, hoping to receive a bribe.

When Felix was recalled to Rome in disgrace he left Paul still in prison for his successor to deal with. Felix’s replacement was Porcius Festus, who arrived in 58 or 59 CE. The Jewish authorities lost no time in approaching the new governor, asking that Paul be transferred to Jerusalem for trial, hoping to hijack Paul on the journey and put him to death. Festus refused their request but offered them the opportunity to resume their case against Paul at Caesarea. This hearing took place eleven days later.

Luke does not specify the charges brought against Paul but says that they were ‘many’ and ‘serious’ (25:7) and that the Jews could not prove them. Wishing to ingratiate himself with the Jews Festus asked Paul to go to Jerusalem and be tried there, with Festus himself as the judge. Realising that he would not get justice in either Caesarea or Jerusalem, and that the proposed transfer posed a threat to his personal security, Paul exercised his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the emperor. (25:11). This last recourse ensured that he would remain under Roman protection.

Not long after Festus took up the reins of procuratorial power King Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice paid a state visit to welcome the new governor. This social call from local royalty, which would have involved lavish entertaining, lasted ‘many days’, according to Acts 25:14, During the course of the visit Festus told Agrippa about Saul’s case. Agrippa said that he would like to hear Paul himself so Festus arranged for this to take place on the following day.

THE SCENE

The hearing took place in an auditorium at Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea was previously a Phoenician settlement that had been rebuilt by Herod the Great between 22 and 9 BCE and named in honour of his patron, the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE). The city was one of Herod’s spectacular building projects and, constructed of gleaming white limestone, must have been an impressive sight. It was also a major feat of engineering.

Using huge stones and hydraulic concrete Herod created an artificial harbour by building a large breakwater. Along with a palace, temples, theatre and amphitheatre the city featured a modern underground drainage system and an aquaduct to transport water to the city from from the springs at Mount Carmel eight miles away.

When the Romans annexed Judaea in 6 CE Herod’s palace at Caesarea became the governors’ residence and the city the administrative headquarters of the Roman regime in the province. Paul would have been well acquainted with Caesarea and would have visited it many times (e.g. Acts 9:30; 18:22; 21:7-8; 23:31-27:3).

The following day Agrippa and Bernice arrived at the auditorium ‘with great pomp’ (phantasía 25:23). As well as Festus the hearing was attended by senior military commanders (chilíarchos) and by the leading citizens of Caesarea. Most of these would have been Gentiles.

One can imagine the spectacle as Agrippa and Bernice left their chariot and, waving to the crowd, entered the auditorium. There they were respectfully greeted by the military officers in shining uniforms and by the well-dressed dignitaries and their wives. Luke draws a contrast between Agrippa and Paul.

25:23 Agrippa came, Paul was brought.

25:23; 26:29 Agrippa entered with great pomp, Paul was in chains.

25:23 Agrippa was accompanied by Bernice, Paul stood alone.

Before the hearing began Festus addressed a few introductory remarks to the assembled company. He introduced Paul and summarized the case history, as he viewed it, up to the time of Paul’s appeal. In the course of his remarks he asserted Paul’s innocence of any crime (25:25, see also 25:18; 26:31). Although mentioning the appeal to Augustus he did not emphasize Paul’s Roman citizenship but instead dwelt on Jewish hostility towards him. Before handing the proceedings over to Agrippa Festus explained that the objective of the hearing was to enable him to compile a report advising the imperial court of the charges against Paul.

What followed was, in effect, a show trial. It may partly have been to enable Festus to send a report but was mostly for the entertainment of his guests. The views of Festus and Agrippa on Paul’s guilt or innocence were irrelevant. Paul had appealed to Caesar, Nero would decide.

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

Posted on 18th Aug 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Greek: Ἀγρίππας (Agríppas)

Latin: Agrippa

English: Agrippa

Full name: Marcus Julius Agrippa

Known in history as: King Herod Agrippa II

Reading: Acts 25:13 – 26:32

‘King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’ Acts 26:27-28

INTRODUCTION

The Acts of the Apostles is a second volume by Luke the Evangelist (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:3) who ended his gospel with an account of the Ascension of Jesus. It is at that same point he commences the book of Acts. In this second work he documents the rise of early Christianity; from its small beginning as a new sect within Judaism to status as an international religion. A key verse in the Acts of the Apostles is 1:8:

‘But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.’

Acts falls into two main sections: chapters 1-12 and chapters 13-28. The first section concentrates on local missionary work in Palestine and in the surrounding areas of Judaea and Samaria. It is Jewish in flavour, Peter is the prominent apostle and the activity is based in Jerusalem.

Chapters 13-28 concentrate on overseas mission. The emphasis is therefore gentile rather than Jewish, the apostle Paul is prominent and the operational base is Antioch. This section includes details of three missionary journeys by the apostle Paul plus a record of his journey to Rome for trial. It ends with his physical imprisonment there and yet his amazing freedom to preach and teach ‘those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ’ (28:31) right in the hub of the Roman empire.

In this second half of the Book of Acts, as Christianity moves away from Judaism towards the Gentiles, Luke highlights the hostile attitude of the Jews towards the apostle Paul by including details of four incidents which deal with Paul’s status in the eyes of the ruling authorities. In these four cases the Romans are portrayed as having treated him with comparative fairness.

23:12-35 Claudius Lysias

24:1-27 Antonius Felix

25: 1-12 Porcius Festus

25:13 – 26:32 Porcius Festus and King Agrippa II

Our study will focus mainly on Acts 25:13 – 26:32 which details the state visit of King Herod Agrippa II to the Roman governor Festus and the hearing before Agrippa at which the apostle Paul gave his defence. This section may be divided as follows:

25:13-22 Festus briefs King Agrippa privately on the charges against Paul.

25:23-27 Festus briefs the assembled company publicly on the charges against Paul.

26: 1-29 King Herod Agrippa II hears Paul’s defence.

26: 30-32 Luke reports a private conversation during which Agrippa and others conclude that Paul is innocent.

THE MAIN CHARACTERS AT PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE AGRIPPA

THE APOSTLE PAUL

Paul, also known as Saul, was a first century Jew who was born in Tarsus in modern Turkey. He was a Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel, one of the most famous rabbis of the day (Acts 22:3). He described himself as having been a persecutor of the early Christians until he had a conversion experience on the road to Damascus. Thereafter, believing that Jesus was the Messiah, he spent the rest of his life in missionary activity, assisted by various co-workers, in various parts of the Roman empire; especially in areas around the coast of the Aegean Sea. Although it was his custom to commence his work in each area by teaching in the local Jewish synagogue Paul believed that salvation through faith in the resurrected Messiah Jesus was available also to Gentiles, without them first having to convert to Judaism or observe Jewish customs, rituals or food regulations. He gathered groups of his converts to Christianity into assemblies which functioned under local leadership (elders and deacons) and after moving on to new areas he conducted ongoing written correspondence with these churches. Some of his letters, all undated, have survived and are included in the New Testament canon. In his Defence before Agrippa Paul summarized his early career and reported on his missionary work (conducted in fulfillment of his commission by the risen Jesus) up to that point in time (c. 60 CE).

PORCIUS FESTUS

Festus was a Roman procurator of Judaea whose period of office is thought to have begun in 59 or 60 CE. He took over at a turbulent time in the history of Judaea as the Jews had been cruelly treated by previous procurators and revolution was brewing. He comes across in Acts as a man of action. After just three days in office he left his residence at Caesarea Maritima and went up to Jerusalem to survey the situation there. After returning to Caesarea about ten days later he lost no time in having Paul brought before him (‘the next day’ 25:6). Referring to this in v.17 he said ‘without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgement seat’. By comparison with other governors he was an upright man who did not accept bribes, nevertheless, like Felix, he did experience pressure from the influential Jewish leaders (Acts 24:27; 25:9). He died in 61 or 62 CE, less than two years after his meeting with the apostle Paul.

BERNICE

Bernice (or Julia Berenice) was a great-granddaughter of Herod the Great and one of five children of King Herod Agrippa I of Judaea by his wife Cypros. Bernice was born in 28 CE, and was a year younger than her brother, the future King Herod Agrippa II.

When she was aged 12 or 13 her father gave her in marriage to Marcus Julius Alexander who was about 16 years her senior and son of a prominent Jew, Alexander the Alabarch of Alexandria, who had bailed her father out of some financial troubles. She became a widow when her husband died some three years later.

Her father, just before his death in 44 CE, then married her off to his own brother, her uncle Herod, King of Chalcis. She had just turned 16 and her uncle was 38 years her senior. The marriage lasted six years until he died c. 49/50 CE. At 22 years of age Queen Bernice was left a widow for the second time, with two young sons, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus, whom she had borne to her uncle.

She and her boys then moved to live with her brother Agrippa who was subsequently granted their uncle’s kingdom of Chalcis. She remained with him for more than a decade, effectively acting as his consort and co-ruler. Her visit along with Agrippa to greet Festus at Caesarea Maritima and her presence at the interrogation of the apostle Paul is confirmation that she carried out royal and ceremonial duties with her brother.

Their intimate relationship became the subject of much scandalous gossip at the time and it is thought that her third marriage in 63 CE to Ptolemon II of Cilicia Trachaea may have been contracted in an attempt to quell the rumour that she and Agrippa had entered into an incestuous relationship. The marriage lasted less than a year, after which she returned to live with her brother. Luke makes no mention of a sexual relationship in the book of Acts, nevertheless he does make it clear that she was definitely involved along with Agrippa in all the proceedings. This he achieves by repetition of the words ‘and Bernice:’

‘And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.’ Acts 25:13

‘And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp.’ Acts 25:23a

‘And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them.’ Acts 26:30

In the years leading up to 66 CE she, along with her brother, unsuccessfully implored the Jews to remain obedient to Roman rule and was forced to leave Jerusalem with him.

About the year 67 CE she met the future Roman emperor Titus, who with his father Vespasian and their army was resting up up at Caesarea Philippi (the capital of Herod Agrippa’s kingdom) after a military campaign in Galilee, and became his lover. He was about ten years younger than Bernice.

Some years after the Fall of Jerusalem (c. 75 CE) she moved to Rome where Titus was heir apparent to the imperial throne. Their affair restarted and she lived openly with Titus at the palace, behaving as if she were already the Empress of Rome. Unfortunately the Romans did not like the idea of a foreign queen and both the aristocracy and the general populace turned against her.

Such was was the hostility of public opinion that when Titus became Emperor in 79 CE he did not make her his queen but, probably against his will, dismissed her. He died in 81 CE just before his 42nd birthday. By then Bernice had probably left Rome. Nothing is known of how, when or where she died.

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II

Herod Agrippa II, born 27 CE, was the last ruling member of the Herodian family in the Eastern Mediterranean. The year of his death is uncertain (estimates range from 86 -100 CE) but is likely to have been 93 CE. He is mentioned in the book of Acts chapters 25 and 26 in connection with Festus, the Roman procurator of Judaea (59-62 CE), and the apostle Paul. Although he was a member of the Herodian dynasty Luke seems quite favourable towards him. Luke does not refer to him by the dreaded name ‘Herod’ but only by his name Agrippa. Having been brought up and educated at the imperial court in Rome on account of his father being a Roman client king, Agrippa generally used his Latin name ‘Marcus Julius Agrippa’. He therefore thought of himself as a Roman, though nominally he was a Jew. He took a deep interest in Jewish affairs (in which Paul acknowledged him to be an expert (Acts 26:3), and on occasion spoke up for Jewish interests at Rome. He remained, however, thoroughly hellenized and totally loyal to the Romans throughout his lifetime.

The Herodian family was infamous for its lax morals, brutality and intrigue. New Testament references to the dynasty make unpleasant reading:

Agrippa II’s great-grandfather was Herod the Great (72-4 BCE) who killed all the babies in Bethlehem (Mt 2:16).

His great-uncle Herod Antipas (c. 20 BCE- later than 39 CE in exile) had John the Baptist beheaded (Mk 6:14-29; Lk 9:7-9). Along with his soldiers Herod Antipas mocked Jesus, who had been sent to him by Pontius Pilate (Lk 23:11).

His father King Herod Agrippa I (11 BCE – 44 CE) executed James the brother of John and also imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1-3).

Marcus Julius Agrippa II had one brother and three sisters. His younger brother Drusus died young, before reaching his teens. His three sisters were Bernice (or Berenice), Mariamne and Drusilla (whose second husband was the Procurator Antonius Felix). Mariamne and Drusilla were ten and six when their father died.

King Herod Agrippa I died in 44 CE. Three years earlier Judaea, a Roman province since 6 CE, had been handed over to his control and he had been given the title ‘King’. At the time of his death his son Marcus Julius Agrippa junior was 17 and still being tutored at Rome. The emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) and his advisors considered him too young for the responsibilities of kingship so Judaea was annexed once more by the Romans and administered for a second period (44-66 CE) by procurators. Having been brought up at the Roman court Agrippa did, however, have very good connections with the imperial family.

In 49 CE the Emperor Claudius granted him the territory of Chalcis in Lebanon on the death of his uncle (and brother-in-law!) Herod of Chalcis. This gave him the royal title ‘King’ and with Chalcis came Curatorship of the Temple in Jerusalem which gave the right to appoint and dismiss the High Priest. Agrippa made full use of this power and had an ongoing rocky relationship with the Jewish priesthood; for example, during the seven years from 59 CE he appointed and dismissed five High Priests.

In 53 CE, Claudius exchanged Agrippa’s small kingdom of Chalcis for a much larger area, the former tetrarchy of Philip plus several eastern territories.

In 54/55 CE the Emperor Nero (54-68 CE) further expanded Agrippa’s kingdom by giving him control of Tiberias, Tarichaea, Bethsaida and Julias in Galilee plus some territory in Southern Peraea.

During the 60’s CE Jewish outrage at abuses by the procurators increased. As tension grew Agrippa tried his best to persuade the Jews not to revolt but to submit to Roman domination. This was unsuccessful and the Jews expelled him and his sister Bernice from Jerusalem in 66 CE. King Herod Agrippa II supported Vespasian and Titus in their war against the Jews (66-70) and played a small role in that war. He was involved in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, much of which had been built by his great-grandfather. As reward for his support he was made a senior senator in Rome c. 75 CE and his territory was expanded. Until his death he remained active in his kingdom while also furthering his political career in Rome. He was fabulously wealthy; Jacobson (2019, pp129-130) writes;

‘While we have no quantitative information about Agrippa’s personal wealth, its size can be approximately estimated from the data given by Josephus for his predecessors who had title to much of the same territory. Josephus states that Herod Antipas enjoyed an annual revenue of 200 talents from Peraea and Galilee, while the areas to the east of Galilee, namely Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis and ‘a certain portion of what was called the domain of Zenodorus’ yielded Philip the Tetrarch the sum of 100 talents (AJ 17.319; BJ 2.95). Although Agrippa II only possessed the eastern portion of Galilee, he certainly made up for the lack of western Galilee with Arca and Abilene. So, it seems reasonable to estimate the annual revenue from his territories as exceeding 300 talents (of silver) and may have been nearer 1,000 talents. With one Attic talent equivalent to 6,000 drachmas, his revenue from those sources would have approached six million drachmas. One drachma represents the average day wage of a labourer in the Graeco-Roman economy. Besides this revenue, Agrippa would have derived supplementary income from the vast estates that he owned outright. As an example, together with his sister, Berenice, the king possessed estates near Mount Tabor administrated by his steward (epitropos), Ptolemy, and elsewhere by Thaumastus, who their father Agrippa I received as a slave from Caligula.’

In spite of all his wealth and political power King Herod Agrippa II ended his life as a renegade who turned his back on his people and on his religion.

One can only wonder how history might have been different had Agrippa shifted his allegiance from the Roman empire to the kingdom of the risen Messiah Jesus. If only he had genuinely believed the Old Testament prophets (Acts 26:27) and had moved from being ‘almost’ a Christian (26:28) to being ‘altogether’ a Christian (26:29)!

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2):

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

Exposition

THE AARONIC BLESSING

Posted on 31st Jul 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.’ Numbers 6:24-26

INTRODUCTION

Recently I attended a wedding service during which the officiating minister delivered the Aaronic Blessing. I was intrigued by this pronouncement, in a 21st century CE Christian setting, of a liturgical blessing from the ancient Israelite cult. I therefore decided to look more closely at the scriptural occurrence of this benediction and seek to determine the original circumstances and meaning behind its use?

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Aaronic Blessing appears in the book of Numbers which is the fourth of the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). These books are often referred to collectively as the Pentateuch, or as the Torah (law or instruction). The Aaronic blessing comes at the end of a large chunk of religious legislation extending from Leviticus 1:1 – Numbers 6: 27.

This cycle of instructions is mainly concerned with the holiness of YHWH (the Lord) and with the holiness of the Israelites as his chosen people. YHWH had revealed himself to the Israelites as their national god, had brought them out of slavery in Egypt (the Exodus) and had made a covenant with them at Sinai by which they obligated themselves to worship him exclusively. He had also delivered to Moses blueprints for the construction and erection of a portable shrine (known as the Tabernacle) dedicated to YHWH worship and had given detailed instructions for an associated cult (set of religious practices). The latter involved the institution of a priesthood and a sacrificial system. All of this had been successfully implemented as instructed by the time the book of Numbers opens.

At that point the Israelites are preparing to leave Sinai and travel through the wilderness to the Promised Land. Just as the community is about to set out on the journey Moses delivers instructions, specifically to the Aaronite priests, about a blessing. It draws attention to the good things that lie in store for YHWH’s covenant people; those who live their lives in accordance with his revealed word.

THE CONCEPT OF BLESSING

‘Bless’ and ‘blessing’ are common words in the Old Testament and in the culture of the time the concept carried various shades of meaning.

1. Blessing functioned as part of an everyday greeting similar to our modern ‘Hello!’ (see Ruth 2:4; Psa 129:8).

2. Blessing was regarded as having almost magical power to bestow future fertility, prosperity and security (see Gen 27:30-38).

3. Blessing often had God as the object and in these instances it conveyed gratitude and thanksgiving on the part of human beings (see Gen 24:27; Ex 18:10; Ruth 4:14; 1 Sam 25:32-33; 2 Sam 18:28; 1 Kgs 1:48; 5:7; 8:15, 56; 1 Chron 16:36; 2 Chron 2:12; 6:4 and various psalms e.g. Psa 28:6; 31:21). The emphasis is on God as the recipient of praise for blessings already received rather than as the giver of future blessings.

4. ‘Blessed’ was used to describe the situation of one who had already received good things, e.g. Psa 1:1

5. Blessing was used as part of religious worship as petition for the favour of the deity and perhaps also, in the case of the Aaronic Blessing, as a prayer for protection through death (e.g. the Ketef Hinnom amulets – see below).

Hagee (2012, p.27) comments:

‘When God blesses man it is to bestow good health, abundant success, and prosperity, both materially and spiritually. When man blesses God, it is presented in the forms of thanksgiving, reverence, obedience, praise and worship. When a man blesses his fellow believer, he recites the Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6:22-27…’

It is useful to note the important difference in emphasis between blessings already received and those wished for the future. One produces a beatitude, the other a benediction. The Aaronic Blessing is a benediction.

AN ANCIENT BENEDICTION

In 1979 two tiny silver scrolls were found during the excavation of a tomb at Ketef Hinnom near Jerusalem. Since they contain an abbreviation of this priestly blessing in miniature script it is generally thought that these were worn as amulets by the person buried there (possibly a priest). Dating from about the end of the seventh century BCE, these tiny silver sheets are now the oldest written portions of the Hebrew Bible in known existence, predating the Dead Sea Scrolls by three or four centuries.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PASSAGE

Following immediately upon the block of legislation dealing with Israel’s holiness, particularly that in Num 5-6 about holiness in the camp, comes this benediction which expresses a wish for the ideal situation; a state of harmony, security and prosperity for the Israelites, brought about by holiness.

6:22-23. The introduction to the blessing.

6:24-26 The wording of the blessing.

6: 27 The conclusion to the blessing.

THE INTRODUCTION TO THE AARONIC BLESSING

‘And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them‘ Num 6:22-23

This introductory section emphasizes that the Lord himself initiated this blessing. YHWH (the Lord) is the author, Moses is the messenger and Aaron and his descendants are the mediators of the blessing. The revelation by YHWH to Moses specifies the blessing as part of a religious ritual that is to be invoked only by priests. These are weighty words that not just anyone can speak casually.

Deuteronomy makes it clear that blessing was one of the main functions of the Levitical priestly office (see also 1 Chron 23:23):

‘At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.’ Deut 10:8

‘And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:’ Deut 21:5

In Numbers 6, however, the message is even more specific: only the Aaronite priests can invoke this priestly blessing. The mediation of the blessing was a specific duty which was exclusive to a single group of priests authorised by YHWH.

We are not told when this blessing was first pronounced by Aaron but it may have been some time earlier when the priests began to exercise their ministry just after the inauguration of the Tabernacle and the priesthood. According to Lev 9:22:

‘And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings.’

What Aaron said on that occasion is not divulged nor is there mention of the lifting of the hand in Num 6, but perhaps the wording of that first blessing matched what is recorded here in Numbers 6:24-26.

The particle ‘thus’ (translated ‘on this wise’ in the KJV) specifies that the blessing must be given exactly in the form and wording prescribed by YHWH.

THE WORDING OF THE AARONIC BLESSING

‘The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.’

This formal request to God for the granting of prosperity, fertility and success to the Israelites consists of three lines each having two clauses and containing two verbs.

bless keep

shine be gracious

lift give

The verbs call for six related actions on the part of YHWH in order that this favourable situation for his people might be achieved.

YHWH appears as the first word in each line and is therefore explicitly the subject of the first clause in each line. He is also implicitly the subject of the second clause in each line. The placement of YHWH at the beginning of each line is for emphasis, as grammatically the threefold repetition is unnecessary. This stresses that although the benediction is spoken by the priests it is the Lord who issues the blessing. This rules out the possibility that blessing can come from another source e.g. the priests or false deities.

Some equate the threefold mention of ‘the Lord’ with the Holy Trinity (Father, Psa 110:1; Jesus, Rom 10:9; Holy Spirit, 2 Cor 3:17) and link the Aaronic Blessing with the Apostolic Benediction ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.’ in 2 Cor 13:14.

Scholars see great literary accomplishment in the Hebrew. Each of the three lines is longer than the one before thus, it is thought, illustrating the increasing flow of God’s blessings. In the original the lines have 3, 5 and 7 words which is a regular sequence of odd numbers. The number of consonants in the lines is 15, 20 and 25 which is a sequence by five. The number of syllables is 12, 14 and 16.

The pronouns throughout the blessing are singular. The KJV clearly shows that they are second person singular by the use of ‘thee’, e.g. ‘The Lord bless thee and keep thee’. Although singular, and therefore referring to each individual Israelite, this is a collective singular similar to that in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17: Deut 5:6-21), e.g ‘Thou shalt, thou shalt not’, so the import is wide.

Although one could hardly describe the relationship between YHWH and his Old Testament worshippers as intimate yet the use of second person singular pronouns emphasizes that it was personal. By blessing individuals YHWH blessed the people as a whole, by blessing the people as a whole (collective sense) he blessed individuals.

There is some discussion as to whether the blessing contains six petitions or three. The general opinion seems to be that there are three. That assumes that the verbs are in pairs. The first clause of each line is a call for YHWH to act towards the Israelites, the second clause has to do with his activity on their behalf in response to that call.

The last part of each line can be taken as expanding or explaining the request in the first part (i.e. it is epexegetical).

Some suggest that the Lord blesses by keeping (protecting), the Lord makes his face to shine by being gracious and that he lifts up his countenance thereby giving peace.

The last part of each line may be regarded as giving the consequent action of God to the request in the first part, i.e. it is the result.

The verbs in the Aaronic Blessing

BLESS

bāraḵ: to bless, kneel, salute, greet. Its derived meaning is to bless someone or something.

Blessing in the Old Testament had little to do with spirituality but more to do with material benefits. The first biblical mention of blessing in Gen 1:28 shows that it has to do with productivity (offspring), prosperity, empowerment and personal physical security. Deuteronomy 28:1-14 (which is also in the second person singular) gives a list of blessings that an obedient worshipper of YHWH might expect to receive:

28:3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.

28:4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

28:5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.

28:6 Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

28:7 The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.

28:8 The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

28:11 And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers to give thee.

28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.

28:13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath;…

KEEP

šāmar: to watch, to keep, to preserve, to guard, to be careful, to watch over.

This word is used of men guarding, protecting or tending (e.g Gen 2:15; Isa 21:11-12) and of YHWH keeping covenant (e.g. 1Kgs 8:23-25). This request in the Aaronic Benediction is for protection by YHWH against any force, human or spiritual, that would disrupt or destroy the blessing once received by his people.

Psalm 121, in which šāmar occurs several times, is a meditation on YHWH’s vigilance (‘neither slumber nor sleep’) and his preservation of his people. He is a divine security guard.

I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth. He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand. The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night. The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul. The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even forevermore.

SHINE

’ôr: to give light, to shine, to become light, make bright

Examples: Jonathan’s eyes brightened 1 Sam 14:27, 29; and Ezra 9:8 ‘that God may brighten our eyes’.

‘May YHWH make his face to shine in your direction’

This anthropomorphism which attributes human features to God indicates that God makes his presence known but the imagery of his face shining means much more. God is not only near but also friendly and his attitude is benevolent. He will give a positive and favourable reception. See also Psa 31:16; Psa 80:3, 7, 19.

Note: The opposite imagery of the shining face is that of hiding the face (e.g. Deut 31:18) which speaks of rejection.

Psalm 67, which is based on the Aaronic Blessing, is a meditation on ‘bless’ (vv. 1, 6, 7) but also includes the expression ’cause his face to shine upon us’ in v.1.

BE GRACIOUS

ḥānan: to be gracious toward, to favour, to have mercy on.

The idea here is that of God showing favour to his people. This is usually thought of as the action of a superior towards an inferior. There is not the distinction between grace and mercy that we have in the New Testament. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) translates ‘be gracious’ as ‘show mercy’. The prayer is that God might deal with his people in mercy, grace and deliverance from afflictions. Perhaps forgiveness of sins would be included as one of God’s gracious actions; judgement tempered with mercy.

At Sinai YHWH had revealed himself as ‘merciful and gracious’ but also held out the possibility of judgement:

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Unlike the above quotation from Exod 34:6-7 there is no mention of judgement in in the Aaronic blessing.

LIFT

nāśā’: to lift, to carry, to take away.

The ‘lifting up of the countenance toward’ literally ‘turn his face towards’ suggests that God is looking at and therefore paying attention to his people, smiling upon them with pleasure and affection.

GIVE

śiym: to put, to set, or to place, to appoint, to bring, to call, to put, to change, to charge, to commit, to consider, to convey, to determine.

The petition ends with a request for the Lord to grant šālôm (peace). ‘Peace’ does not just mean the absence of war but also carries the thought of unity, harmony, well-being, health, prosperity,wholeness, security and salvation.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE AARONIC BLESSING

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Num 6:27

Following the words of the Aaronic Blessing comes verse 27 which continues the instructions for blessing given by YHWH to Moses in vv. 22-23. The Septuagint places verse 27 at the end of verse 23. The verse concludes the section on the Aaronic Blessing and gives an insight into how it was viewd by the Lord.

‘and they shall put my name upon the children of Israel;‘ Does this refer to a further separate ritual that is not described here or back to the invocation of the Aaronic Blessing? Given that details of a different ritual are not supplied it seems most likely that YHWH regarded the invocation of the blessing by the Aaronite priests as a figurative act of putting his name upon the people.

As a ritual act the recitation of the Aaronic Blessing expressed the divine name (being and character) of the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God and reminded the Israelites that they belonged him.

The divine name reminded them of who he is – his character.

The divine name reminded them of what he had done – his works.

The divine name reminded them of what he had promised- his covenant.

As worshippers of an awe-inspiring, holy God they had to be holy as well. The pronouncement of the benediction did not provide an easy magic shortcut to blessing. They had to worship the Lord, obey him and walk in his ways, then blessing would follow. Whenever the blessing was asked for such people it would definitely be granted.

The blessing had to be requested by the Aaronite priests but it was not caused by them. The Lord alone could bless.

SUMMATION

As Christians today we can enjoy the principle enshrined in the Aaronic Blessing: that the Lord who has saved us and brought us into a relationship with himself can sustain us on our journey of life with blessings which are unmerited but graciously bestowed. It is our responsibility, as those who belong to him, to live holy lives.

‘But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.’ Mat 6:33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Bailey, L. R., 2005. Leviticus-Numbers, Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys

Bush, G., 1858. Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Numbers: Designed as a General Help to Biblical Reading and Instruction, New York: Ivison & Whinney

Duguid, I. M. and Hughes, K. R., 2006. Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Hagee J., 2012. The Power of the Prophetic Blessing, Brentwood, TH: Worthy Publishing

Martin, G. and Anders, M., 2002. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman.

North, G., 1996. Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers, Tyler, TX: Inst for Christian Economics

Pitkänen, P., 2018. A Commentary on Numbers: Narrative Ritual and Colonialism. New York: Routledge

Swete, H. B., 1909, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Cambridge University Press

Rushdoony, J. R., 2006. Numbers, Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon/Ross House Books

van Kooten, G. H., 2007. The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity, Leiden: Brill.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Cocco, F., 2007, La sonrisa de Dios. Los verbos de la bendición de Num 6,24-26, available at

https://www.academia.edu/9648468/La_sonrisa_de_Dios_Los_verbos_de_la_bendici%C3%B3n_de_Num_6_24_26

Cohen, C., 1993, The Biblical Priestly Blessing (Num. 6:24-26) in the Light of Akkadian Parallels, Tel Aviv, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 228-238

Fishbane, M., 1983, Form and Reformulation of the Biblical Priestly Blessing, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 115–121.

Isaak, M. A., 1995, Literary Structure and Theology of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Three-fold Blessing, Direction Magazine, Vol. 24. No. 2 pp. 65-74

Martens, E., 2009, Intertext Messaging: Echoes of the Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6:24-26), Direction Magazine, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 163-178

Miller, P. D., 1975. The Blessing of God, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Vol. 29, No.3, pp.240-251

Ozolins, K., 2021. Artifact in Focus: The Ketef Hinnom Amulets, Ink Magazine, Issue 9, pp. 12-14

Yardeni, A., 1991. ‘Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem.’ Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 176–185

Exposition

2 PETER 2:1-22 FALSE TEACHERS

Posted on 16th May 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

This entire chapter is taken up with the topic of false teachers.

2:1-3 THE DECEITFULNESS OF FALSE TEACHERS

2:4-10a THE DESTRUCTION OF FALSE TEACHERS

2:10b-22 THE DESCRIPTION OF FALSE TEACHERS

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Pet 2:1-3

2:1-3 The Deceitfulness Of False Teachers

[1] Having claimed in 1:16 that what he preaches is the truth and also that the Old Testament scriptures are inspired and reliable Peter moves on to talk about those who will distort truth. He labels them ‘false teachers’ and predicts that just as false prophets (pseudoprophḗtēs) arose among ‘the people’ (nation of Israel), so false teachers (pseudodidáskalos) will appear in the Christian church; the new people of God (1 Pet 2:10). The Old Testament definition of a false prophet is given in Deut 18:20-22 (see also Deut 13:1-5). For OT examples of false prophecy see 1 Kgs 22:5-12; Jer 5:31; 14;13-15; Ezek 13:1-23; Mic 3:5-12). The rise of false teachers in the church was also predicted by Jesus (Matt 7:15; 24:11) and by Paul (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Cor 11:19; 1 Tim 4:1).

These false teachers will smuggle in (pareiságō – secretly bring in) ‘heresies of destruction’ i.e destructive heresies. As teachers they were probably in positions of church leadership. ‘Heresy’ is a different school of thought or a sect, but in a bad sense (Gal 5:20). Here the plural word seems to mean the opinions or views of a single school of thought or sect, rather than plural (i.e. several) sects.

These false views will be destructive to the false teachers themselves as ‘they bring upon themselves swift (soon, same word as 1:14) destruction’ (2:1c) and ‘their destruction is not asleep’ (v3).

Peter again raises the concept of the master-slave relationship. In 1:1 he calls himself a ‘slave of Jesus Christ.’ Here in 2:1 he claims that the false teachers are denying ‘the master that bought them’ and in verse 19 says that they are the ‘slaves of corruption.’ This implies that we are all slaves to something.

The false teaching results in them ‘denying the master that bought them.’ This may have been a denial of Christ’s lordship over their lives because of their immoral behaviour but a reading of chapter 3 would suggest that it included rejection of the Second Coming/future judgement. The image of Christians having been bought by Christ’s death and owing allegiance to him as a result is found also in 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23 and Gal 3:13.

In this verse Peter refers to his opponents and by calling them ‘false teachers’ implies that what they teach is not reliable. He does not, however, present reasoned arguments against their doctrine but tries to arouse the emotions of his readers against the false teachers by concentrating, not on doctrinal but on moral failings which he attributes to them. He hopes that, disgusted by these, his readers will reject the opposing teachers.

[2 -3] Because of the many people who will follow the false teachers’ licentiousness (debauched behaviour, disordered sexual activity) the way of truth will be slandered and reviled. The apostles were very aware of the influence the conduct of Christians could have on the surrounding pagans (1 These 4:12; 1 Tim 6:1; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 2:12, 15; 3:16).

Peter had been accused (1:16) of following ‘cunningly devised fables’ but here again maintains that his teaching is ‘the way of truth’.

In v.3 Peter warns his readers that in their greed (covetousness) the false teachers will exploit them financially with ‘feigned words’ In v.14 he says that the false teachers are ‘trained’ in greed.

plastois logois, ‘plastic words’ – artifical, easily moulded.

In two negative statements Peter maintains that the false teachers will be judged:

1. ‘from of old their condemnation has not been idle.’ – it is already active

2. ‘their destruction does not sleep.’ – it is awake and ready to fall on them.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds); The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. 2 Pet 2:4-10b

2:4-10a The Destruction Of False Teachers

In this section Peter seeks to support his statement that the condemnation and destruction of false teachers is certain. The argument is in the form of ‘If …then…’. He presents three examples from the Old Testament and in v.9 clearly states the point he is making.

EXAMPLE 1 The Angels That Sinned (2:4)

‘God did not spare the angels that sinned’ refers to the story in Gen 6:1-4 of heavenly beings that lusted after human women and produced offspring with them. The story is also referenced in Jude 6. More details are found in the Jewish apocryphal book 1 Enoch ( https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM) chapters 6 and 7 which was well-known at the time and from which (1 En 1:9) Jude quotes (Jude v.14).

Peter does not specify the angels’ misdemeanour but simply states that they ‘sinned.’ He concentrates instead on their punishment. God cast them (not necessarily ‘down’) into hell and consigned them to ‘pits (seirá – lit. pit) of darkness’ where they are kept until the judgement. The text of Jude v.6 reads ‘chains’ (desmós – strong bonds, chains) and many translations use ‘chains’ in both passages, although the words are different.

Strangely, Peter uses a rare verb tartaróō for ‘cast into hell’. It comes from the noun Tartarus (Tártaros) which in ancient Greek mythology denoted the deepest area of Hades. Since Peter’s readers in Asia Minor were from a Greek-speaking background he uses a word that they would understand to describe the fate of the angels that sinned. Although this incident occurred a long time in the past and the judgement is in the future they are even now undergoing punishment.

EXAMPLE 2 God Did not Spare the Ancient World but He Saved Noah and Seven Others (2:5)

Referring once more to Genesis chapter 6 Peter says that God brought judgement upon the ancient world through a flood and wiped out everyone; sparing only Noah and seven others (see 1 Pet 3:20), all members of the one family.

Noah is here called a ‘herald of righteousness.’ ‘Righeousness’ is upright behaviour. The word kḗrux can be used in the sense of ‘preacher’ e.g. 1 Tim 2:7. There is no mention in the Old Testament of Noah calling upon the antediluvians to repent.

EXAMPLE 3 GOD DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRAH BUT DELIVERED LOT (2:6-8)

The third example gets fuller treatment because the situation was similar to that in which Peter’s readers found themselves. Like Lot, the Christians in Asia Minor whom Peter addresses lived in a wicked society and found the sexual immorality and lawless conduct of their neighbours distressing. Not only that but false teachers in the church were denying the Lord’s Second Coming and rejecting the possibility of a future judgement. Thinking that they would not have to account for their conduct these teachers lived and promoted an evil lifestyle.

Genesis chapter 19 records how righteous Lot was rescued but Sodom and Gomorrah judged by fire. Peter says that this made them a model or pattern (hupódeigma) for what will happen to those who have lived ungodly since that time on. In the next chapter (3:10-12) Peter employs images of fire, heat and melting when describing the judgement at the end of the world (Day of the Lord).

[9-10a] In v.9 Peter sums up the main point of the ‘If…then…’ style argument he has been making in vv. 4-8 and applies the lesson from the well-known examples of God’s judgement that he has presented:

‘The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.’

If God has punished those that sinned in Example 1, and punished sinners and saved the righteous in Examples 2 and 3, then God knows how to save the righteous and punish sinners.

The section ends at 10a with the comment that judgement falls especially upon those who ‘follow the flesh with its depraved desire’ and ‘despise lordship’. The latter term is probably equivalent to ‘denying the master’ in v.1. Peter thus brings the subject back to the false teachers mentioned in vv.1-3.

2:10b-22 The Description Of False Teachers

Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 2 Pet 2:10b-16

[10b-16] Peter launches into a description of false teachers and in vv.10b-16 deals with two of their main characteristics; arrogance and sensuality. In v. 10b he negatively assesses them as brazen and insolent and says that they are not afraid to slander the glorious ones. The example of this given in the following verses is difficult to understand.

Since ‘dignities’ (doxai – glories, glorious ones) seems to refer to angelic beings (whether good or bad) in Jude v.8 many take it that here in 2 Peter the ‘glorious beings’ are also angels. Most who hold this view take it that in this instance the reference is to evil angels/demons(2:4) and that the false teachers must have been reviling them. Keating (2011, p.182) summarizes this view:

‘They are charged with bringing reviling and blaspheming judgments against the glorious beings (literally, “the glories”), which is a reference to the angels or to demonic powers. If Peter is referring to good angels, then the false teachers are reviling them either by denying the authority of the Scriptures that the angels were mediators of, or more probably by denying the final judgment that was to be carried out by the angels. The angels were often understood in Jewish and Christian tradition to be the mediators of the Old Testament revelation (see Heb 2:2) and to be the instruments of the final judgment (see Matt 13:39–41). If Peter is referring to demonic powers here, then the false teachers are reviling them probably by “denying that the devil could have any power over them and speaking of the powers of evil in skeptical, mocking terms.”

In 2 Peter, however, it is God (1:17) and Jesus Christ (1:3,17; 3:18) who are said to have glory. I think it more likely that the disparaging of the glorious ones refers to the denial by the false teachers of the the Second Coming of Christ and dismissal of the fact that God will one day judge the world (See chapter 3).

[11] The conduct of the angels is contrasted with that of the false teachers.

Either:

The false teachers arrogantly slander glorious beings but the good angels, who are superior in strength and power to the false teachers, do not advance a slanderous judgement against the fallen angels before the Lord. (e.g Jude v.9).

Or:

The false teachers arrogantly slander God and Jesus Christ but angels, who are superior in strength and power to the false teachers, do not advance a slanderous judgement against the false teachers before the Lord.

[12-14] These three verses are one long sentence.

‘But these’ (i.e. the false teachers in contrast to the angels) are irrational animals born naturally for capture and destruction (i.e caught and killed for food). The emphasis is on the ignorance of the false teachers. They behave irrationally and live like animals. They slander things they are ignorant of (this is equivalent to ‘slander the glories’ in v.10b) and will perish in their own corruption. This tells us that these people were unregenerate as in 1:4 believers are said to have ‘escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.’

There is some wordplay in the original ‘shall utterly perish in their own corruption’. To replicate it in English the phrase would read something like: ‘ They shall be destroyed with the same destruction they have brought about.’ (Kraftchick cited by Vinson, Wilson & Mills 2010, p.338).

[13] They will receive the ‘reward of unrighteousness.’ This is similar to the ‘wages of sin’ in Rom 6:23.

‘They count it pleasure to revel in the day-time.’ Normally revelling was regarded as taking place at night (darkness is associated with evil) but the false teachers were so immoral that they practised their debauchery in full view during the day as well.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. Rom 13:12-13

Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning! Ecc 10:16

Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! Isa 5:11

‘spots and blemishes as they carouse with you, revelling in their own deceptions.’ This is about disgusting behaviour at their parties and banquets, but may refer to the Lord’s Supper.

[14] ‘Their eyes are filled with an adulteress and they are insatiable for sin.’ The false teachers are always eying up women with a view to sexual activity.

‘they ensnare unstable souls’ They try to bring those who lack foundation in the faith, probably recent converts, under their control.

‘souls’ More or less equivalent to ‘people.’

‘unstable’ (astḗriktos) This word occurs only here and at 3:16.

The false teachers have hearts ‘well-trained’ in greed. The word gumnázō was used of athletic training and exercise. Their greed was habitual, they were experts.

At the thought of it Peter cannot help exclaiming ‘Accursed creatures!’ (lit. children of a curse).

[15] The false teachers have abandoned the straight road, they have gone astray and followed the road of Balaam, son of Bosor, who loved profit from wrong-doing. It was believed that the non-Israelite Balaam willingly accepted a bribe to curse Israel (Read Num 22, for the four oracles of Balaam see Num 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19.

‘road’ or ‘way’ was generally used of conduct (see 1 Sam 12:23; Hos 14:9; Psa 107:7; Acts 13:10) and go astray for ‘being corrupted.’

In the Old Testament Balaam’s father’s name is given as Beor (Num 22:5, 25:3).

[16] Peter relates that the ‘dumb’ (áphōnos, without articulate speech)’beast of burden’ (hupozúgion) rebuked Balaam for his error. An irrational beast saw the error of Balaam’s way and spoke to him, the false prophets do not see the error of their way and proceed like brute beasts.

In the Old Testament account in Numbers 22:21-35 it was the angel of the Lord that issued the rebuke to Balaam. The ass had been aware of the angel’s presence and would not go any further After Balaam struck it the animal protested in a human voice. (See also Num 31:16; Deut 23:5; Neh 13:2; Jude v.11; Rev 2:14)

These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest: to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 2 Pet 2:17-22

Slaves and Apostates 2:17-22

[17] Peter continues his description of the false teachers and refers to them as ‘these [people].’ He calls them ‘waterless wells and mists blown away by sharp gusts of wind’ Just as an empty well would leave thirsty travellers disappointed and mists that disappeared would disillusion farmers anxious for rain to water their crops so the teaching of the false teachers was empty and useless.

‘the gloom of darkness has been reserved for them’ Compare v.4.

[18] ‘great swelling words’ (hupérogkos) bombastic, inflated, swollen, oversized

They ensnare in the ‘passions of the flesh’ and ‘sensualities’ people who ‘are only just escaping.’ The false teachers target new converts who are still in the process of breaking away from their old way of life and from their former associates who live in error.

[19] The false teachers promise freedom (they probably taught that Christians are not bound by the moral law, see Rom 6:15; 1 Pet 2:16) but while talking to others about liberty they themselves are slaves to corruption (moral corruption). There follows a saying or maxim based on the image of someone defeated in battle, taken captive and enslaved: ‘for a man becomes the slave of him who overpowers him.’

[20] ‘For’ What does ‘for’ refer back to?

a) Perhaps it looks back to ‘slaves of corruption in 19a and is therefore a reference to the false teachers themselves. This is most likely.

b) Perhaps it looks back to v.18 and refers to those (recent converts) who are just escaping paganism but have been ensnared by the false teachers.

To become an apostate, to leave Christianity and return to paganism, is to be in a state worse than one was at first. Peter emphasizes the seriousness of this in the next verse.

[21] It would have been better to have remained pagans than to have known ‘the way of righteousness’ (Christianity) and then have turned from the ‘holy commandment’ (the gospel message – holy because it is from and about Jesus Christ).

Peter uses the noun epígnōsis in v.20 and twice in v. 21 the verb epiginṓskō. These speak of an intense, full sort of knowledge.

[22] ‘But it is happened unto them’ This is a dramatic perfect which speaks of what is certain to happen in the future as if it has already happened.

Peter then quotes two sayings about the filthy and disgusting habits of dogs and pigs.

‘The dog has returned to its vomit’ This same saying is used in Prov 26:11 of a fool who repeats his folly.
‘The sow which has been washed [has returned] to wallow in mire.’

These proverbial sayings aptly illustrate both the uncleanness and the apostasy of the false teachers

Exposition

2 PETER 1:12-21 COMMENTARY

Posted on 21st Apr 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

PETER’S TESTAMENT AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS

‘Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ 2 Pet 1:12-21

[12-15] PETER’S TESTAMENT

There are two main themes in these four verses; remembrance and Peter’s forthcoming death. The fact that he will die soon makes it important that the believers keep his teaching in mind. Each of the themes is mentioned three times.

REMEMBRANCE (12, 13, 15)

v.12 ‘Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things’.
v.13 ‘I think it meet, __ to stir you up by putting you in remembrance.’
v.15 ‘that ye may be able__ to have these things always in remembrance.’

PETER’S DEATH (13, 14, 15)

v.13 ‘as long as I am in this tabernacle.’
v.14 ‘shortly I must put off my tabernacle’
v.15 ‘after my decease.’

These verses are an example of a genre known as ‘testament.’ This is a written farewell speech in which the author predicts his death, emphasizes his legacy as a teacher and warns that some will come after his death and attack his memory and teachings. For other New Testament examples see: Jn 15;1-17:26; Acts 20:17-38; Phil 1:12-30.

[12] ‘these things’ i.e. Peter’s teaching in the previous section.

‘I intend to keep on reminding you of these things’ Since Peter will soon be dead, he must mean that his letter will be an ongoing reminder of him and his teaching. He encourages his readers by saying that they are already familiar with the truth and need to be established in it. The other uses of words in the same group (from sterixo, ‘to make fast’) at 2:14; 3:16,17 suggest that some of these believers were vulnerable and unsteady.

[13-14] In 2 Peter ‘tabernacle’ or ‘tent’ is a metaphor for ‘body’ (1:13-14), the word only occurs elsewhere in the NT in Acts 7:43, 46. The use here conveys the thought that our lives on earth are transitory.

This reminds me of the refrain of hymn No. 48 in The Believer’s Hymnbook:

Here in the body pent,
Absent from Him I roam,
Yet nightly pitch my moving tent
A day’s march nearer home.

Peter, too, was aware that he would soon die, in fact he says that the Lord Jesus Christ had made it clear to him. Two other references relating to predictions about Peter’s death are Jn 13:36-38 and Jn 21:18-19.

[15] Peter speaks of his death as an ‘exodus’. Within the space of just a few verses we learn that for the believer death is not just an éxodos (departure 1:15) from this life but also an eísodos (entrance 1:11) into the eternal kingdom.

[16-18] THE INTEGRITY OF THE APOSTLES

In this section Peter uses the Transfiguration as proof of the reliability of Christ’s future power and coming and emphasizes that he, with other apostles, was present:

v. 16 ‘we were eyewitnesses (epóptēs -only occurs here in NT)
v. 18 ‘we heard this voice’
v.18 ‘we were with him’

They saw Christ’s ‘majesty.’ Verses 17-18 expand on this vision of Christ’s megaleiótēs (‘greatness’)

Peter maintains that the Transfiguration was not a cleverly devised fable but a genuine historical event that foreshadowed Christ’s parousia. The teaching about Christ’s power (dúnamis) and coming (parousía) is therefore said to be reliable. ‘Power’ is linked with Christ’s resurrection in Rom 1:4. In the New Testament ‘parousia’ never refers to Christ’s first coming (Incarnation) but always to his Second Coming, e.g. Mt 24:3. 37, 39; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8; Jas 5:7,8; 1 Jn 2:28.

[17] ‘excellent (majestic) glory’ i.e . God.

[18] ‘voice which came from heaven’ i.e. the voice of God.

The above are examples of a type of synecdoche known as abstractum pro concreto, when an abstract concept is used for something concrete.

[19-21] THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPHETS

Not only does the trustworthy testimony of apostles who have seen Christ’s majesty and heard God’s voice declare that Jesus is the Son of God confirm the reliability of the teaching about the parousia but the teaching is also founded upon the reliability of scripture.

[19] ‘We have also a more sure word of prophecy’ What Peter had seen and heard on the mountain is confirmed by the Scriptures. The identity of the Prophetic Word is not given. The term may refer to the Old Testament scriptures as a whole, because they speak of Christ. Verse 20, however, would imply that a particular prophecy is in mind. Since it is not specified it must have been well-known to the original readers of the letter. A couple of possibilities are Num 24:17 and Dan 7:13-14.

‘I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.’ Num 24:17

‘I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.’ Dan 7:13-14

The latter passage is used eschatologically in Mt 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Rev 1:7, so it may be the most likely candidate.

The Christians in Asia Minor to whom Peter is writing are advised to pay attention to the message of prophecy as it is like a lamp shining in a dark world ‘until day dawns’ and the morning star arises in their hearts. Since there is no article preceding ‘day’ the reference is not to a specific day (e.g. The Day of the Lord) but just a contrast between darkness and dawn. When day dawns darkness will vanish!

In Lk 1:78 Jesus is called ‘the dawn from on high’ and in Rev 22:16 ‘the bright morning star.’

‘in your hearts’ Peter talks about the effect the parousia will have on believers. It will banish all doubt and uncertainty and for them the light from the lamp of the prophetic word will give way to the glorious illumination of eternal day. A new future age will begin.

[20-21] These verses emphasize that scripture is divinely inspired.

‘no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation’ Who is the individual doing the interpreting? The reader or the prophet? Both are possible.

1. The reader: no individual is permitted to interpret scripture according to their own ideas but in accordance with what is intended by the Holy Spirit.

2. The prophet: what any genuine prophet prophesies does not come from himself but God.

The reason is given in v. 21. Prophecy came via human beings, but they were moved by the Holy Spirit. What the prophets spoke and wrote was prompted by God.

Peter stresses the reliability of the teaching of the apostolic witnesses and of the Old Testament scriptures about the Lord’s parousia and coming judgement because he is about to deal with the topic of false teachers who scornfully reject these promises.

Exposition

1 PETER 3:1-12 – COMMENTARY

Posted on 15th Apr 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

3:1-7 SUBMISSION IN THE HOME

3:8-12 PRINCIPLES OF GODLY LIVING

‘Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew — evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.’

3:1-7 Submission in the home

Having written about submission as a citizen and as a slave (or employee) Peter now addresses the topic of submission in the home. He first speaks to wives (3:1-6) and then to husbands (3:7). For advice by the apostle Paul to husbands and wives see Eph 5:22-25; Col 3:18-19.

[1] The word homoíōs – likewise, in the same way – links back to what has gone before (2:13), where submission is to be ‘for the Lord’s sake.’ As also v.7.

hupotássō ‘be subordinate to’ is the same word as in 2:13,18 but this does not mean that women are to submissively allow themselves to be treated like slaves; wives do not have the same relation to husbands as slaves have to masters. It is a military word that has to do with the arranging of troops under a commander of superior rank. The present participle of the verb is used as an imperative.

‘to your own husbands’ This is also at verse 5.

‘if any obey not the word’ Several of the Christian women had pagan husbands.

‘word’ is used twice in this verse – ‘the word (the gospel message) and ‘without a word’ (without saying anything).

The motive for submission was evangelistic; that the unbelieving husbands might be won over ‘without a word’ by observing the ‘way of life’ of the wives. The Christian life is a powerful witness.

‘won’ kerdaínō to win over, gain, make a profit (Jas 4:13). This word occurs five times in 1 Cor 9:19-22, seemingly it was used by missionaries as a buzzword for convert or save.

[2] ‘behold’ take note of, see 2:12

‘chaste’ pure – This is wider than sexual purity; see Phil 4:8; 1 Tim 5:22; Tit 2:5; Jas 3:17; 1 Jn 3:3.

‘in fear’ reverent – This was to be their attitude towards their husbands, or perhaps God, as in 1:17.

[3] The character of a Christian woman is more important than her outward appearance (cp. Isa 3:18-24).

[4] ‘hidden man of the heart’ i.e. inner personality.

‘of’- The genitive is either:

a) possessive i.e. the person who lives in the heart,

or:

b) appositional i.e. the heart – the unseen person

Peter is speaking here of true beauty which is internal:

it is hidden
it will not fade away
it is precious to God

A gentle and quiet spirit is imperishable. The idea is that of self-control. A woman is not expected to live in silence or to have no personality. Both gentleness and quietness are precious in God’s sight (see 1 Sam 16:7).

[5-6] Peter now turns to the Old Testament and says that the holy women of old (possibly Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah) were more interested in interior than exterior adornment. These women were ‘holy’ in that they were called and set apart by God. They ‘trusted in God’ i.e. by faith they expected that God would fulfil his promises (Heb 11:13). In v.6 Peter moves from the general to the particular and cites the case of Sarah, someone who was highly respected as the ‘mother’ of the Jews (Isa 51:2). She is held up as an example of submission because she called her husband ‘lord’. The reference must be to Gen 18:12 where she refers to him as her ‘lord’ but does not call him that directly.

Peter says that these formerly pagan women he addresses are Sarah’s spiritual daughters (like her they are strangers and pilgrims) if:

a) They do what is right i.e. defer to their husbands

b) Let nothing terrify them.

Peter turns from the reference to Sarah and addresses the everyday situation of the Christian women of Asia Minor. Even if treated badly by pagan husbands or neighbours they are to be courageous and controlled in their response to difficult situations.

[7] This verse contains Peter’s advice to Christian husbands, the reference to prayers tells us that the men being addressed are Christians. The advice is shorter than that to women because many of the Christian women were married to pagan husbands. As in 3:1, verse 7 begins with ‘likewise.’ This is not saying that Christian husbands are to be subject to their pagan wives but the word ‘likewise’ connects the sections back either to the general statement in the previous chapter that all human creatures are to be respected (2:13), or perhaps to ‘with all respect’ (2:18).

‘dwell with [them] according to knowledge’ There is no article but it is clear that the reference is to ‘your wives.’

‘knowledge’ here means ‘insight’ as in 1 Cor 8:1-13. Peter lists three motives for this:

1) ‘giving honour to the female as the weaker vessel’

‘the female’ – an adjective used with a neuter single to form a noun – a generic single i.e. the female sex. The weakness in view here is physical, not spiritual. ‘vessel’ i.e. the body (1 Thess 4:4). The Christian husband is to realise that men and women have been created differently and that he is to treat his wife with courtesy and respect. This verse would also address the topic of intimidation or physical abuse of a Christian wife by her husband, should such a situation ever arise.

2) ‘since you are joint-heirs of the grace of life’

At that time women were also weaker in terms of social standing and influence but here Peter makes it clear that Christian husbands and wives have the same spiritual standing and are therefore equal partners in the service of the Lord.

‘of life’ This is an epexegetic genitive which provides further explanation. This grace consists of life.

3) ‘that your prayers be not hindered’ It is necessary to have a right relationship with others in order to have a right relationship with God (Mt 5:23-26; 18:19-35; 1 Cor 11:17-22). ‘hindered’ – cut off or struck out. It is here taken for granted that Christians pray.

Some Bible verses on the topic of hindered prayer:

‘If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.’ Psa 66:18

‘Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.’ Pro 21:13

‘He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.’ Pro 28:19

‘But your iniquities have separated between you and — your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.’ Isa 59:2

‘Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all by them?’
Ezek 14:3

‘But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.’ Mk 11:26

3: 8-12 PRINCIPLES OF GODLY LIVING

[8-12] In these verse Peter gives a general exhortation as to how Christians ought to behave towards one another. Verse 8 contains five adjectives advocating the following characteristics:

1) UNITY

2) SYMPATHY

3) BROTHERLY LOVE

4) COMPASSION

5 HUMILITY

Verse 9 emphasizes that Christians should not retaliate but return good for evil. They should have this attitude towards each other and also towards their persecutors outside the church. If they do this they will ‘inherit a blessing’ in a metaphorical sense, for a literal example see Heb 12:17. The thought is similar to that in Mt 5:38-48; Rom 12:14, 17; 1 Cor 4:12; and 1 Thess 5;15.

In verses 10-12 Peter encourages the Christians by quoting from Psalm 34, which he has already cited in 2:3. Here the quotation confirms that the Lord blesses those who do good. The quotation ends with the words: ‘For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.’ God will deal with the wicked, the Christian’s responsibility is to react to opposition and abuse by seeking and pursuing peace. This leads Peter to once again take up the topic of suffering already mentioned in 1:6; 2:19–24 and 3:9.

Exposition

2 Peter 1:1-11 COMMENTARY

Posted on 7th Apr 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

1:1-2 GREETINGS

‘Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,’

[1-2] The author begins by using the standard format of a Greek letter and introduces himself as Symeon Peter. This form of his first name reproduces the Hebrew šim‘ôn rather than the Greek ‘Simon’ and is only used of Peter elsewhere in the New Testament in Acts 15:14. He calls himself a slave (doúlos) and apostle of Jesus Christ. The former is a title that is common to all Christians but Peter is also emphasizing that as an apostle he writes with authority, since an apóstolos is an ambassador, someone sent to deliver a message from a higher authority.

The letter is addressed to believers who have equal standing in Jesus Christ as Peter says that they have ‘been granted a faith equally precious with ours.’ The word lagchánō means to obtain by lot, i.e. freely. The faith here is probably not, as in verse 5, their personal faith in Christ but the body of truth, as in Jude 3. If it does refer to personal faith then clearly it is a free gift, originating not with man but with God. In either case Peter is assuring them that the faith which they have received is in no way inferior to his. Even though these Christians had heard the gospel second-hand from the apostles their faith is of equal value to that of Peter and others who heard it direct from Christ himself. They, like all others, had received it ‘through the righteousness (fairness, lack of favouritism) of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ The reference here is NOT a double one; to God the Father and to our Saviour Jesus Christ. Peter here applies the title ‘God’ to Jesus, thus indicating the divinity of Jesus Christ. The title ‘saviour’ is a favourite of 2 Peter, occurring five times: 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18.

Other New Testament verses that call Jesus God are: Jn 20:28; Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8.

Here, as in 1 Peter, the Christians are greeted with a blessing, that grace and peace be multiplied. Unlike 1 Peter these are here said to come through ‘the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.’ This knowledge (epígnōsis) is not an intellectual appreciation but refers to the more intense, decisive, true personal knowledge of ‘coming to know’ Christ in conversion (1:3, 8; 2:20).

The author has not yet identified exactly who these Christians are. We do not find out until 3:1 that this is his second epistle to them. They must therefore be the Christians in Asia Minor addressed in 1 Peter 1:1.

1: 3-4 GOD’S POWER AND PROMISES

‘According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.’

[3-4] Aware that these Christians have been brought up in a pagan Hellenistic environment Peter uses non-biblical concepts in order to get his message across. Greek philosophy used such terms as ‘divine’,’ life’, ‘goodness’, ‘knowledge’, ‘excellence’, ‘corruption’ and ‘divine nature.’ He tells them that the knowledge of God brings benefits (‘great and precious promises’) to Christians and that these are given by divine power and through knowledge of him who has called us. Note the use of the preposition ‘through’ in vv. 1,2 and 3.

1:1 ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ‘
1:2 ‘through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.’
1:3 ‘through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.’

It is unclear whether vv. 3-4 are connected to verse 2 or to vv. 5-7. Given the repetition of ‘knowledge’ it is likely that they relate back to verse 2 and expand on the theme of knowledge.

One might ask: “who are ‘him’ and ‘us’ in verse vv. 3-4? Does ‘his/him’ refer to God the Father alone or does it change to Jesus as the one who has called us? Does ‘us’ refer to Peter and the apostles in particular or to all Christians in general?

Peter tells them that God’s ‘divine power’ (an abstract way of saying’ God himself’) has provided (perfect tense – permanent and final) everything that is needed for spiritual vitality and godly living (eusébeia piety, devotion to God 1:6; 3:11). This is available only through him (God or Jesus Christ?) who has called us to share in his own ‘glory and power/excellence.’ Note that in the New Testament it is God who calls: Rom 4:17; 9:12; Gal 1:6, 15; 5:8; 1 Thess 2:12; 5:24; 2 Tim 1:9; 1 Pet 1:15; 5:10.

Through these (KJV ‘whereby’), i.e. his glory and power, he has bestowed (perfect tense – permanent and final) on us ‘great and precious (honourable and magnificent/extraordinary) promises.’ These promises are the Old Testamentary prophecies and the words of Christ himself. In the context of 2 Peter they probably include the promises of The Second Coming (1:16; 3:4, 9-12), a new heaven and earth (3:13) and entrance into the kingdom of Christ (1:11).

‘that’ This ‘so that’ gives the objective behind the giving of the promises. It denotes purpose. It is through the fulfilment of these promises (‘by these’) that believers gain two benefits, one positive and one negative:

1) They ‘participate in the divine nature (note the repetition of ‘divine’ – only in 1 Pet 1:3, 4 and Acts 17:39, translated ‘Godhead.’ This second abstract expression (see 3a) is a roundabout way of saying that God calls us to the destiny of eternal life with him. It does NOT mean that Christians will become demigods but that they will share some characteristics of God. Peter’s concern is moral transformation rather than divinisation. This participation in divine life is already under way in the present. As we live in communion with God we get to know him better, hear his word and live to please him.

2) By doing this they escape the corruption (corrupt, disordered way of life) that is in the world because of lust (passion, unbridled evil desire). The word ‘desire’ is in the singular, meaning ‘drive’. This process of spiritual growth / escape from corruption through knowledge of Christ and through his divine power will reach its consummation at his return. We do not need to depend on our resources or strength, according to verse 3a we have been given everything that we need.

1:5-11 A CALL TO SPIRITUAL MATURITY

‘And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’

[5] ‘And beside this’ i.e. for this very reason. This links back to what has been said about escape from corruption and participation in the divine nature. In view of what has been given to them the believers are to ‘make every effort’ (the verb occurs only here in the NT) to supplement ( ‘add’ epichorēgéō means ‘provide at one’s own expense’, i.e. supply) maturity. Peter lists a sequence of eight key virtues that they must expend strenuous effort to cultivate. These are arranged in seven pairs, with the second in each pair being repeated as the first in the next pair, thus forming a chain of development. This logical chain format is known as a ‘sorites’.

faith, virtue
virtue, knowledge
knowledge, temperance
temperance patience
patience, godliness
godliness, brotherly kindness
brotherly kindness, charity

Virtue lists were a feature of Greek and Roman works on morality and the NT authors borrowed the form in order to present Christian content. There are other lists in the sorites format at: Rom 5:2-5; 8:30; 10:14; Jas 1:2-5. Other NT occurrences of virtue lists are at: 2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22-23; Phil 4:8; Col 3:12-15; 1 Tim 4;12; 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; Tit 1:7-8; Jas 3:17-18.

Faith – pístis – saving faith in God
Virtue – aretḗ̄ – that which is pleasing to God, moral excellence
Knowledge – gnṓsis – practical understanding of right from wrong (not the intense word epígnōsis of vv. 2,3, 8)
Temperance – egkráteia – self-control, (perhaps aimed at the troublmakers of chapter 2)
Patience – hupomonḗ– perseverance (perhaps aimed at those impatient as regards the parousia chapter 3)
Godliness – eusébeia – piety, devotion (perhaps aimed at the false teachers who are ungodly 2:6; 3:7)
Brotherly kindness – philadelphía – love for other Christians
Charity – agápē – self-giving for the benefit of others,

[8-9] ‘For if these things be in you, and abound.’ If one truly is a Christian then these qualities ought to be manifested more and more. Without them the Christian life is fruitless.

‘be in you’ hupárchō This verb means to exist, to be present with someone ie. implies possession. Peter is saying ‘If they really possess these things, and have them in abundance this will prevent them from being: argós (a + érgon) without work, inactive, idle – and ákarpos ( a+ karpós) without produce, unfruitful – in respect of (eis) your knowledge of Christ.

Christians who lacks these qualities become blind and short-sighted (muōpázō – occurs only here in NT- we get our English word myopia from it). They are so near-sighted that they cannot see what they have received and also their future benefits. They are focused on the present. Peter also says that someone lacking these has forgotten the cleansing from his former sins and is likely to return to his previous way of life.

[10-11] ‘wherefore the rather’ i.e. ‘because of this’ – the encouragement and warning of vv.8-9 – they are to’ make all the more effort, be eager’ (1:15; 3:14) to confirm (make sure) their calling and election. Peter draws a conclusion. These ‘brethren’ (Christians are part of a family) are called and chosen by God, it is up to them to confirm this by living a life that matches it.

Calling and election (a word pair with little difference in meaning) are often combined in the New Testament: Mt 22:14; Rom 8:28-30; 1 Cor 1:26; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 17:14.

[10b -11] If the readers do these things there is a promise in two parts, one negative and one positive.

negative: 1) ‘If you do these things you will never fall’

positive: 2) If you do these things you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom.’

‘these things’ As in v.8 and v.9 ‘these’ (taúta) are the qualities listed in vv.5-7.

‘will never fall’ (ptaíō) stumble, come to grief, trip up, go wrong. There is no suggestion of a loss of salvation here as salvation does not depend upon spiritual growth. Peter is saying that mature believers who pursue godliness will be preserved from sin (Jas 2:10; 3:2) ‘offend’).

[11] Those who do these things will be welcomed by Jesus into his eternal kingdom. This will be at the end of life, or possibly this is a reference to the Second Coming.

‘so’, thus, in this way. i.e by doing these things

‘abundantly’ – Emphasizes the kindness and generosity of God who provides a triumphal welcome.

‘eternal kingdom’ Mt 5:20; 7:21; Jn 3:5; Acts 14:22. The eschatological kingdom – final salvation. Dan 7:27; Lk 1:33; Rev 11:15. Peter may be emphasizing the permanence of Christ’s kingdom as contrasted with that of the emperor cult.

‘our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ Caesar was called Saviour as well as Lord. This expression only occurs in 2 Peter: here and at 2:20; 3:2, 18.

Latin loanwords

PRAETORIUM

Posted on 2nd Apr 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

PRAETORIUM

‘And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.’ Mk 15:16

Greek: (πραιτώριον) praitṓrion

Latin: praetorium

English translation KJV: praetorium (Mk 15:16); common hall (Mt 27:27); hall of judgement (Jn 18:28a); judgement hall (Jn 18:28b, 33; 19:9; Acts 23:35); palace (Phil 1:13)

At Easter Christians recall the Passion (suffering) of Jesus Christ. This refers to the events of the last week of his life and includes his agony and arrest at Gethsemane, his religious and political trials, crucifixion, death, and burial. The four New Testament gospels have passion narratives but, since they each have their own emphasis, all do not include the same information. Only Luke, for example, tells us that Pilate adjourned the trial for a while and sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, who was in Jerusalem for the Passover at the time (Lk 23:6-12). The Fourth Gospel has the most dramatic detail of all; John sets the Passion in five locations:

A GARDEN (we know from Mt 26:36 and Mk 14:32 that the place was called Gethsemane) Jn 18:1-11

THE HOUSE OF ANNAS (the High Priest Caiaphas’s father-in-law) Jn 18:12-27

PILATE’S PRAETORIUM Jn 18:28-19:16

GOLGOTHA Jn 19:17-37

A GARDEN WITH A NEW TOMB Jn 19:38-42

The central location is Pontius Pilate’s praetorium at Jerusalem. Originally a ‘praetorium’ was the large tent of a praetor (a Roman military commander). This tent was the portable headquarters of an army in the field and within it was situated a platform on which was located a seat upon which the commander sat in order to administer justice and army discipline. The Praetorium was also used for councils of war. Gradually, as the Romans annexed conquered territories and installed either procurators or prefects (civil or military governors) in the Provinces, the term came to be applied to buildings which were official residences of the provincial governors.

The place where Jesus was tried by Pilate is called a ‘praitṓrion’ in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. This is a Latin loanword (praetorium) transliterated into Greek as πραιτώριον. Generally speaking, the Roman governors took up residence in the home of the displaced native ruler. The procurators of Judaea, although based in Caesarea, often moved temporarily to Jerusalem during Jewish festivals, to ensure the maintenance of law and order. The gospels do not identify the building or the location of Pilate’s residence there but, since it was on a hill (Mk 15:8 ‘ the crowd ‘came up’ to Pilate NIV, ESV, NASB) and inside the city walls (Mk 15:20 ‘led out’), the most likely building was the former palace of Herod the Great, which had been built on the west hill of Jerusalem in 25 BCE.

It was a large complex which included domestic wings, a famous ornamental garden and military barracks. If this was indeed the building then in front of it was a square called the Lithóstrōtos (pavement) and the Gabbatha (platform) in Jn 19:13. These were two different names, one Greek and one Aramaic, for the same place. The Greek name referred to the stone pavement and the Aramaic name to the platform which was also there; upon which stood the bḗma, Pilate’s judgement seat.

Herod’s son, the ethnarch Archelaus, had occupied the palace until he was deposed and exiled by the emperor Augustus in 6 CE, at which time his territories were annexed by the Romans to form the Province of Judaea. The building thus became available for use by the governors of the new province whenever they resided for short periods in Jerusalem. Their usual residence and the civic and military headquarters were located in Caesarea Maritima. We know from Acts 23:35 that a later Roman procurator, Marcus Antonius Felix (52 -60 CE), lived in Herod’s palace in Caesarea and that it too was known as a ‘praitṓrion.’

In the early morning (18:28a) Jesus was taken from the High Priest Caiaphas to the praetorium where Pilate was already up and at work. Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman Province of Judaea, and held office for about ten years (26-36 CE). His predecessors were Coponius (6-9 CE); Marcus Ambibulus (9-12 CE), Annius Rufus (12-15 CE) and Valerius Gratus (15-26 CE). Pilate is mentioned in the New Testament but there is also good historical evidence for him in the writings of non-Christians such as Philo, Josephus and Tacitus. These authors are generally hostile towards Pilate but he must have been a competent administrator to have survived so long in the job.

Pilate has for many centuries been known as a Procurator of Judaea but the find of the Pilate Stone /Pilate Inscription in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 confirmed that his exact title was ‘Prefect’. A Procurator’s responsibilities were mainly civil (financial and administrative) but a Prefect was usually a military man and had additional powers. As a Prefect Pilate was the highest judge in Judaea and held the ius gladii (right of the sword), the authority to administer capital punishment without first consulting his immediate boss, the Legate of Syria, or the Roman emperor.

Pontius Pilate despised the Jews, which may have been why he was appointed to office in Judaea by the Supreme Prefect, Lucius Aelius Seianus, who actively pursued anti-Jewish policies in Rome. Pilate had several major conflicts with the Jews during his time in office. These included incidents involving: army flags, banners and insignia with the Emperor’s picture on them; the setting up of votive tablets to Tiberius in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem; the use of ‘corban’ funds from the Temple to finance construction of a new aquaduct for Jerusalem; the murder of a group of Galileans as they offered sacrifice in the Temple (Lk 13:1-2); and the slaughter of a crowd of Samaritans who had gathered at Mt. Gerizim hoping to witness a miracle.

Pilate’s treatment of the population during these incidents was excessively brutal and he lost his job in 36 CE as a result of the Samaritan affair. His superior, Lucius Vitellius, the governor of Syria, ordered him to Rome to account for his actions. Fortunately for Pilate, he arrived in Rome just after the death of Tiberius in 37 CE and there is no record of any action having been taken against him by the new emperor, Caligula. Later traditions say that he committed suicide, was executed or became an active Christian. A wealthy member of the Pontii family, it is more likely that he lived out the remainder of his life in retirement.

Pilate must have had his suspicions when approached by the Chief Priests with the rather odd request that he put to death a young, popular, Jewish rabbi called Jesus. The religious leaders, who had no love for the Romans, claimed to be acting out of loyalty to Rome by asking for Jesus’ execution for a political, rather than a religious, offence.

Pilate would have controlled a sophisticated network of spies in Judaea and have known that Jesus was not a political agitator. On the other hand, he was responsible for maintaining law and order in the province and Jerusalem was especially volatile at Passover time, when the Jews celebrated a release from bondage to the Egyptians. Someone claiming to be ‘King of the Jews’ was potentially troublesome and certainly a threat to Roman imperial interests. This matter had to be dealt with. The trial of Jesus by Pilate at the Jerusalem praetorium is recorded in all four gospels (Mt 27:11-31; Mk 15:2-20; Lk 23:2-25; Jn 18:28-19:16).

THE PROCEEDINGS AT PILATE’S JERUSALEM PRAETORIUM (Jn 18:28-19:16)

The section of John’s Gospel that deals with the trial of Jesus falls naturally into seven parts, all of them (except the fourth where it is implied) mentioning the action of Pilate as either entering or exiting the praetorium. Ironically the Jewish leaders, who were happily requesting that Pilate execute an innocent man, wished to remain ritually clean so that they could celebrate the Passover. They would not defile themselves by entering the praetorium of the Gentile Romans (18:28). Pilate therefore went back and forth to talk to them where they had gathered, presumably at a side entrance of the castle, just outside the praetorium compound. The action of the trial takes place both inside and outside the praetorium.

18:28-32 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Pilate then went out unto them’ v.29

18:33-38a INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again’ v.33

18:38b – 40 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews’ v38b

19:1-3 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM

19:4-8 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Pilate therefore went forth again’ v.4

19:9-11 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘And [Pilate] went again into the judgment hall’ v9

19:12-16 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth’ v13

Pilate has gone down in history as the man who presided over the trial of Jesus and some of his words and gestures on that occasion are still well-known today. The expression ‘to wash your hands of’ originates from Pilate’s action signifying his denial of responsibility for the death of Jesus (Mt 27:24). His witticism ‘What is truth?’ is still relevant in today’s era of fake news. For some reason Pilate asked this of the only person who could give him the accurate definition of truth but intentionally did not wait for an answer (18:38). This was just one of several questions asked by Pilate during the course of the trial:

TEN QUESTIONS PILATE ASKED

‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’ (Jn 18:29).

‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ (Mt. 27:11; Mk. 15:2; Lk 23:3; Jn 18:33, 37).

‘Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?’ (Jn 18:35).

‘Hearest thou not how many thing they witness against thee?’ (Mt. 27:13; Mk 15:4).

‘What is truth?’ (Jn 18:38).

‘Whence art thou?’ (Jn 19:9).

‘Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?’ (Jn 19:10).

‘Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?” (Mt. 27:17, 21; Mk. 15:9; Jn 18:39).

‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ (Mt. 27:22).

‘Why, what evil hath he done?’ (Mt. 27:23; Mk. 15:14; Luke 23:22).

The first question in the above list was addressed to the Lord’s Jewish religious accusers, the next six to the Lord himself and the last three to the hostile crowd. Of all the above questions the penultimate one has universal significance. It is a question that everyone must answer.

‘WHAT SHALL I DO THEN WITH JESUS WHICH IS CALLED CHRIST?’

This question is of the utmost importance because what you do with Jesus Christ is the greatest decision of your life. Your personal salvation and your eternal destiny depend upon it. The accounts in the gospels convey the reality that this trial of Jesus at the praetorium was indeed a momentous occasion. The religious leaders were there as the accusers. The Lord Jesus was there as the accused. The crowd was behaving like a jury. Pontius Pilate was the judge. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent and did not deserve to die, and yet he did not want to annoy the crowd and create an incident at Passover time. Jesus of Nazareth had brought a crisis into his life and he had a choice to make. Would he choose his career or Christ? Was it to be Jesus Christ or Tiberius Caesar (Jn 19:12)?

Pilate must have known about Jesus of Nazareth from intelligence briefings. How often must that name have come up in discussions with his security council (cf. Acts 25:12)! Now, however, Jesus himself was standing before him. That day he was not dealing with a report, he was face to face with the person. Pilate wanted to do the right thing but was under extreme pressure. Does his dilemma sound familiar to you? Have you come face to face with the claims of Christ and wanted to do the right thing, but you have felt the pressure?

What would other people say? What would they do if you were to accept Christ, his claims, his person, his work and his salvation? Pilate discovered that the crowd was not going to make it easy for him to choose Christ, that those people were going to be satisfied with nothing less than his complete rejection of Jesus. He tried to evade the issue by making an appeal and offering an alternative but that backfired. Gradually (after about five hours, Jn 18:28; 19:14) it became clear in Pilate’s mind that inaction was no longer an option. A decision had to be made and so he asked the question: ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’

Pilate viewed the evidence against Jesus and reached a firm conclusion. At least three times he publicly asserted: ‘I find no case against him!’ (Lk 23:4, 14, 22). How was it then that a short time later he heard himself sentencing Jesus to death by crucifixion? Pilate thus betrayed an innocent man. He asked the right question, ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ but gave the wrong response, for ‘he delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified’ (Mk 15: 15).

I deliberately wrote that Pilate ‘betrayed’ Jesus because ‘betrayed’ and delivered’ are translations of the same word. Paradídōmi (to hand over) is an important and significant word for the gospel writers and is used of the action of Judas Iscariot (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21; 18:2, 5), the Jewish people (Acts 3:13), their religious authorities (Mt 27:2, 18; Jn 19:11) and Pontius Pilate (Mk 15:15; Jn 19:16) against Jesus Christ.

That day at the Jerusalem praetorium Pontius Pilate made his choice, but it was the wrong one. What, however, have you done with Jesus Christ? This is a personal matter, no-one else can answer that question for you. You must answer for yourself: ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’

Jesus is standing in Pilate’s hall —

Friendless, forsaken, betrayed by all:

Hearken! what meaneth the sudden call?

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Jesus is standing on trial still,

You can be false to Him if you will,

You can be faithful through good or ill:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Will you evade Him as Pilate tried?

Or will you choose Him, whate’er betide?

Vainly you struggle from Him to hide:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

What will you do with Jesus?

Neutral you cannot be;

Some day your heart will be asking,

‘What will He do with me?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Agamben, G. and Kotsko, A., 2015, Pilate and Jesus. Stanford, CA: Meridian

Bammel, E. and Moule, C. D. F., 1971, The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, London: SCM Press

Blinzler, J, 1959, The Trial of Jesus: the Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts, Cork, Mercier Press

Bond, H. K., 1998. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Senior, D., 1991., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of John, Collegeville, Minn: Michael Glazier

Smallwood, E. M., 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. Leiden: E J Brill

Watson, A., 2012., The Trial of Jesus, University of Georgia Press

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Bermejo-Rubio, F., 2019. Was Pontius Pilate a Single-Handed Prefect? Roman Intelligence Sources as a Missing Link in the Gospels’ Story. Klio, Vol. 101, No.2, pp. 505-542

Bindley, T. Herbert., 1904, ‘Pontius Pilate’ In The Creed, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 12-13

Bond, H. K., 1996, The Coins of Pontius Pilate: Part of an Attempt to Provoke the People or to Integrate them into the Empire?, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 241–262

Brown, S., 2015, What Is Truth? Jesus, Pilate, and the Staging of the Dialogue of the Cross in John 18:28-19:1 6a, CBQ, 77, pp. 68-86

Dusenbury, D. L., 2017. The Judgment of Pontius Pilate: A Critique of Giorgio Agamben. Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 32, No.2, pp. 340-365

Ianovskaia, L., 2011. Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Russian Studies in Literature, Vol. 47, No.2, pp.7-60

Liberty, Stephen., 1944, The Importance of Pontius Pilate in Creed and Gospel, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 45, No. 177/178, pp. 38-56

Maier, P. L., 1971, The Fate of Pontius Pilate. Hermes, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp. 362–371

Szanton, N., Hagbi, M., Uziel, J. and Ariel, D., 2019., Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem: The Monumental Street from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Vol. 46, No.2, pp. 147-166

Taylor, J. E., 2006. Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea. New Testament Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 555-582

Wise, H., 2004, In Defence of Pontius Pilate, Fortnight, No. 429, pp. 14–15

Wright, A., 2017. What Is Truth? The Complicated Characterization of Pontius Pilate in the Fourth Gospel, Review & Expositor, Vol. 114, No.2, pp. 211-219

Latin loanwords

CENSUS

Posted on 20th Mar 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Mt 17:25; Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14

Greek – (κῆνσος) kḗnsos

Latin – census

English – census

KJV translation – tribute

The recent arrival in the post of our UK Census 2021 instructions, for online completion of the questions by Sunday 21 March, reminded me that not only is our English word ‘census’ derived from the Latin ‘census’ but also that the same Latin word was loaned to Greek and occurs three times in the New Testament, translated ‘tribute.’

Census-taking is not a recent development. Governments have been attempting to collect information on their citizens for many thousands of years and censuses were taken in such diverse regions as ancient China, Egypt, Rome and Israel. Whereas modern census returns are used for planning the funding and delivery of education, infrastructure, health, security and other vital public services, the information collected in the ancient world was for the purposes of taxation and/or military service. Certainly these two reasons lay behind the censuses recorded in the Bible.

The Old Testament mentions census-taking by Joshua (Josh 8:10), and King Saul (1 Sam 11:8; 13:15; 15:4) but the most famous are the two censuses shortly after the Exodus in the 15th century BCE, the census taken by King David about 1000 BCE, the Roman census around the time of Christ’s birth and another mentioned in a speech by Gamaliel in Acts 5:36. The latter in 6 CE met with resistance led by Judas of Galilee.

The census records in scripture, unfortunately, have become the target of critical scholarship and there is controversy surrounding the details given in the biblical accounts. Should you wish to investigate them, much has been written and is readily available online via Google searches relating to topics like: census figures in the book of Numbers, King David’s census, the census under Augustus Caesar, the census of Quirinius, the Theudas problem.

It strikes me as interesting that although in Latin the word ‘census’ means ‘roll’ or ‘registration’ it seems from its three occurrences in the Greek New Testament (Mt 17:25; Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14) that the Jews in the Roman province of Judaea at the time of Christ did not use it in its original sense. They used the word kḗnsos, not for the registration upon which the tax was based but for the actual tax itself. The KJV therefore translates kḗnsos as ‘tribute’, some modern versions translate it as ‘poll-tax.’ That tax was the ‘tributum capitis’ (head-tax) that the Romans imposed on everyone whose name was on the census. It did not apply to Roman citizens but to the population of the provinces ruled by Rome. All males aged 14 to 65 and females aged 12 to 65 were liable, including slaves.

It was a flat rate personal tax of one denarius (a Roman silver coin) per head. The census figures were updated regularly and based on these the Romans calculated how much each tax district owed. These districts were groups of towns called toparchies. Once assessed the local authorities then had to pay the relevant amount to the Romans, who left it up to them to collect the money as they saw fit. The poll-tax was unpopular in the provinces because it brought home to the citizens in a personal way the fact that they were under the domination of a foreign regime.

The tax was particularly hated in Judaea, although, to some extent, it could be said that the Jews had only themselves to blame for it. After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE two of his sons, Antipas and Philip, each governed as tetrarch over a quarter of his kingdom. The remaining half, consisting of Judaea, Samaritis and Idumaea, was ruled by another son, Archelaus, as ethnarch. These kings, ruling as clients of Rome, were responsible for collecting the taxes in their own dominions.

The Herods were Idumeans (descendants of Edom) but were brought up as Jews. Although in league with Rome they had the sensitivity (not something for which the Herods are famous) to collect their taxes in local coinage which did not bear an image and was thus acceptable to Jews (Ex 20:4); unlike the Roman denarius which bore the image of the emperor. Archelaus was not a good ruler and for various reasons, including a marriage that was considered incestuous, was disliked by his subjects. The Jews therefore sent delegations to Rome complaining about Herod Archelaus, who was eventually summoned to Rome for investigation.

In 6 CE Archelaus was deposed by the emperor and died in exile less than ten years later. The Jews, however, got more than they bargained for because the Romans annexed Archelaus’s territory, bringing the districts of Judaea, Samaritis and Idumaea under their control as the Roman province of ‘Judaea.’

Direct rule from Rome brought Judaea under the Roman tax system, with its regular censuses and payment of the head-tax in Roman coinage. In 6 CE the first census was taken to determine the tax liability of the new province. This resulted in armed resistance organised by Judas of Galilee on the basis that it was not for people who regarded God as their only master to pay tax to the Roman emperor. The beginning of the Zealot movement is usually traced to this time.

When the Jewish religious leaders had their representatives ask Jesus the loaded question: ‘Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?’ these recent events were still in everyone’s mind and the sensitive topic of the head-tax could easily have inflamed nationalistic and religious fervor.

‘RENDER THEREFORE UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR’S; AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S’

In Matthew’s gospel the scene in which Jesus uttered those now famous words about payment of the tribute is set in one of several episodes where he is in conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. These are recorded in Matthew chapters twenty-one and twenty-two. They contain six controversy stories, among which are interspersed four parables. The stories, as already mentioned, are about conflict with the religious authorities. The parables also concern the religious leaders and are aimed at them. They illustrate the failure of the religious authorities to respond to the call of God through Jesus and predict the results of that failure.

THE SIX CONTROVERSY STORIES

21:12-17 Jesus asserts his authority by cleansing the Temple

21:23-27 The question which challenges Jesus’ authority

22:15-22 The question about payment of the poll-tax to the emperor

22:23-33 The questions about the resurrection

22:34-40 The question about the most important commandment

22:41-46 The question (asked by Jesus) about David’s Lord.

THE FOUR PARABLES

21:18-22 The destruction of the unfruitful fig tree

21:28-32 The two sons

21:33-46 The vineyard and the tenants

22:1-14 The wedding banquet and the guest without the proper garment

22:15-22 THE QUESTION ABOUT PAYMENT OF THE POLL-TAX TO THE EMPEROR

After Jesus had driven the traders from the temple the religious leaders had challenged him to state by what authority he had the right to do so. He had replied by asking them if John’s baptism was from heaven, or of men. They dared not answer as they had rejected John but the people thought highly of him. Although it was obvious to all that they knew the answer to the question, they replied that they did not know. This meant that the leading authorities publicly declared themselves unfit to pronounce judgement on a simple, clearcut matter. Jesus therefore refused to tell them by whose authority he had cleansed the Temple (21:27).

Having been made to look incompetent in their discussion with Jesus the Pharisees deliberately consulted (22:15) and laid plans as to how they might trap him in his talk. It is likely that they involved other groups, such as the Herodians (22:16) and the Sadducees (22:23), whom they normally opposed, in these discussions. It is interesting that often those who have no time for one another are willing to temporarily lay aside their differences and form a coalition against Christ and his teachings.

They therefore approached Jesus, armed with premeditated questions, and began by insincerely flattering him with words similar to those which Nicodemus (Jn 3:2) had used sincerely: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances” (ESV). They addressed him as ‘teacher’ but he knew that they had not come to him as to a rabbi for guidance on a topic of religious concern. Once they asked their question ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ he said: ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?’

They had been hoping for a Yes or No answer. If Jesus condemned the payment of the poll-tax to Caesar then they would accuse him of sedition and have him arrested by the Roman authorities for being a Zealot. If he said it ought to be paid then they could stir up the crowd against him, saying that as a collaborator with the oppressive occupying regime and its corrupt system of taxation he was a traitor to his own people and the Jewish religion. There was no loophole. They had him in a dilemma, he could not escape.

Instead of giving a Yes or No answer Jesus asked them to show him the coin that was the only legal tender for paying Roman taxes. Taking a silver denarius he used it as a visual aid, asking: ‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ They answered: ‘Caesar’s.’ Matthew does not tell us which emperor had struck the coin. It may have borne the engraved image of the then current emperor Tiberius Caesar, or perhaps that of his predecessor and stepfather, Caesar Augustus. If a coin of Tiberius it would typically have been inscribed in abbreviated Latin as follows:

[Obverse]

TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS

Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, himself Augustus

[Reverse]

TR. POT. XVII. IMP. VII.

Holder of the Tribunician Power for the Seventeenth Time, Hailed as Imperator (Victorious Commander) for the Seventh Time

Jesus said to them: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s’. It is then said that his questioners marvelled and left him. This was because it was a wise answer which identified two sets of priorities. Jesus was effectively asking them: ‘Who is Caesar and what does he demand?’ and ‘Who is God, and what does he demand?’ His words must have struck home to both groups that had come together to ask the question. The anti-Roman Pharisees were unwilling to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, the power hungry and wealth-seeking Herodians who colluded with the Romans were refusing to render to God what belonged to God.

As we complete and submit our census forms let us remember that every one of us has a two-fold obligation – to Caesar (the state), and to God. These are not mutually exclusive, faithfulness as a Christian does not hinder obedience as a good citizen. Nor are they the same. Caesar assesses what we have. God claims what we are. Caesar’s image and superscription are on our coins, God’s image and superscription is stamped on our consciences. Caesar takes from what is ours, tax is a liability and not voluntary. God expects us to give him our all, it is voluntary and not obligatory. We owe Caesar loyalty and respect, we give God our worship and our service.

If only the Jewish leaders had taken on board the wise advice that Jesus gave on the subject of the poll-tax! The Jewish wars (66-73 CE), the destruction of Jerusalem and the downfall of the Jewish nation might never have come to pass. They failed to ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,’ and paid a terrible price (Lk 19:42-44).

General

ARE YOU A SAINT LIKE ST. PATRICK?

Posted on 16th Mar 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Sometime around 430 CE a sixteen year old Briton was kidnapped by Irish raiders near his home on the west coast, probably close to Dumbarton in Scotland. He was carried away to the north of Ireland and sold to a warrior chief, for whom he worked as a herdsman on the slopes of Slemish mountain near Ballymena, Northern Ireland. Although brought up in the faith Patrick had just been a nominal Christian up to that point in time. Poorly fed and badly treated by his master he began to think about God again and to pray to him regularly. Regretful that he had had little time for God before his capture he repented of his sins and turned to God with all his heart.

After six years of slavery Patrick became convinced that he heard a voice telling him that it was time to leave. He therefore made his escape and travelled to a port two hundred miles south where he boarded a ship bound for Gaul. Details are sketchy but it seems that he trained for the ministry on an island near Cannes before returning home to his family in Britain some years later. There, in a dream reminiscent of the one in which the Apostle received the Macedonian Call, Patrick received his own call to evangelize Ireland. In his dream he encountered a man called Victoricius who carried letters, one of which he read to Patrick. It began with the words: ‘The Voice of the Irish.’

Heeding the call, Patrick arrived in Ireland to find the country in a poor spiritual state. It was steeped in paganism and magic. Patrick travelled throughout the land preaching and teaching; concentrating his evangelistic efforts on the many warrior chieftains. Much of the opposition his mission encountered was from the Druids, a Celtic priestly caste. Having been a slave himself, Patrick was one of the first Christians to speak out against slavery and it is said that shortly after his lifetime the Irish slave trade came to an end. Patrick’s work as a missionary is significant for he was one of the earliest to take the gospel outside the bounds of what had been the Roman empire.

It is hard to separate fact from fiction as regards St. Patrick. Stories about him chasing the snakes from Ireland and illustrating the Trinity with a leaf of Shamrock may be myths but one thing is certain: Patrick was a saint. He has never been canonized by the Roman Catholic church, but that is not how one becomes a saint anyhow. Sainthood is not attained because of what we have done for others and because of what others think of us. We do not have to wait until we are long dead in order to achieve sainthood but we become saints while we are alive. Many of the New Testament epistles were written ‘to the saints.’ The authors were not writing to dead people but to congregations of Christian believers who were very much alive at the time. St. Patrick, like every other Christian believer, did not become a saint because of his good deeds but because he humbly acknowledged his state as a sinner in God’s sight and received Jesus Christ as his Saviour. Patrick wrote;

‘I am Patrick, a sinner, most unlearned, the least of all the faithful, and utterly despised by many…I was like a stone lying in the deep mire; and He that is mighty came and in His mercy lifted me up.’

Patrick journeyed throughout Ireland as an itinerant preacher of the gospel, not to become a saint but because he already was one. He loved the Lord Jesus Christ and wanted to share the good news of salvation with others. His prayer was: ‘Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me…! Are you a saint like St Patrick? If not, then cease from trying to save yourself by your own efforts and instead receive as Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ who died for your sins. That is exactly what a sixteen year old boy in Ireland did almost sixteen hundred years ago, and immediately became a saint!

Exposition

1 PETER 2:18-25 – COMMENTARY

Posted on 10th Mar 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

2:18-25 SUBMISSION AT WORK

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted — for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Slavery was an integral part of ancient society and many of those to whom Peter was writing would have been slaves. This meant that they were the property of their masters, who had absolute power over their lives. Christians believed that they were all one in Christ and that the everyday social distinctions around them did not apply (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11; Philemon 8-18) in the church but real life was very different. Four New Testament books contain advice for Christian slaves (1 Cor 7:21; Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25; Titus 2:9) and additionally 1 Tim 6:1-2 tells Timothy what to teach slaves. Before Christianity there had been much written advice to masters on how to manage, control and get the most out of slaves but no-one had ever written directly to slaves about how to be good slaves.

2:18 Peter here addresses household slaves (oikétēs) and instructs them to be submissive to their masters ‘with all fear.’ The fear is not towards the masters (3:14) but towards God (1:17; 2:17; 3:2; Eph 6:6). The submission is not to be dependent upon how they are treated but is to be shown not only to masters who are kind and fair but also to those who are awkward and hard to work with (skoliós – bent or warped).

2:19 -20 This submission is said to be a ‘grace’ (cháris), an act that God approves of. As his master’s property a slave could be ill-treated for no reason at all and had no legal recourse. The Christian slave is therefore encouraged to be patient even if beaten unjustly. Christian slaves are able to endure (put up with) such a beating because of their consciousness of God (a conscience informed by God) and their relationship to him, which will involve suffering. There is no glory (prestige, boasting, credit) in taking patiently a beating which they deserve because they have done wrong but to take patiently suffering when they ‘act rightly’ is a ‘grace’ (cháris is used again) with God. The word for beat (KJV buffet) means to ‘strike with the fist’ and is the same word used of the blows given to the Lord Jesus at his trial (Mt 26:67; Mk 14:65).

2:21 This submissive acceptance of ill-treatment is a grace (a fine thing) because that is what they have been called to and it is how Christ behaved. His suffering is the supreme example for believers, they are to follow after his tracks (a line of footprints). The word example (hupogrammós) occurs only here in the New Testament and refers to writing that a student would trace when learning the alphabet. The suffering includes Christ’s death (Mk 8:31; Lk 22:15; Acts 17:3; Heb 13: 12) which is said to be ‘on your behalf’. Strictly speaking this is irrelevant to the behaviour of the slaves. There is no suggestion that the slaves were to replicate very aspect of Christ’s suffering but Peter reminds them that they can expect to suffer unwarranted physical and verbal abuse and advises them to accept it without complaining.

2:22-25 Peter illustrates Christ’s example of submission by using a series of phrases (possibly from an early Christian hymn) based on the messianic passage Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. These phrases refer back to ‘Christ’ in v.21. He is the ultimate example of innocent suffering. Notice the relative pronoun ‘who.’

‘who did not do sin nor was guile found in his mouth’ 2:22; Isa 53:9

Peter emphasizes Christ’s innocence: ‘who did no sin.’ This is also stressed elsewhere in New Testament:

‘in him is no sin’ 1 Jn 3:5
‘who knew no sin’ 2 Cor 5:21
‘tempted yet without sin’ Heb 4:15; 7:26
‘which of you convinceth me of sin?’ Jn 8:46
‘no unrighteousness is in him’ Jn 7:18
‘the prince of this world… hath nothing in me’ Jn 14:30

‘who when he was abused did not return abuse, when he suffered he did not threaten but handed himself over to the one who judges justly ‘ 2:23; (see 3:9a) Isa 53:7, also 53:6,12

Insults: Mk 14:65; 15:17-20, 29-32

Silence: Mk 14:61; 15:5; Lk 23:9

‘committed/entrusted’ Lk 23:46

‘himself’ There is no object of the verb, ‘himself’ is implied i.e. he committed his cause to the righteous judge, he knew he was innocent but left his vindication to God. He did not retaliate against his enemies.

Likewise Christians are not to retaliate but leave matters in God’s hands (Rom 12:17-20; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9)

‘who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree…by whose bruise you have been healed’ 2:24; Isa 53:4, 12

2:24 ‘tree’ (xúlon) lit ‘wood’ The word cross (staurós) does not occur in 1 Peter. Peter also uses xúlon in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 and Paul uses it in Gal 3:13, quoting Dt 21:23 where it means ‘gallows.’

‘bore’ (anaphérō) Some would translate this ‘carried up our sins in his body to the tree’ as anaphérō is used in LXX (e.g. Lev 14:20) and in 1 Pet 2:5 of bringing a sacrifice to the altar. Against this is the fact that the New Testament does not generally view the cross as an altar (Heb 13:10?) and that the idea of having got to the cross is already in the phrase ‘on the tree.’

As in Isa 53 the bearing of sins involves putting them away by accepting the punishment for them.

‘in his body’ Christ endured the penalty our sins deserved as a man, i.e. as our representative.

The purpose of Christ’s death was that we might be dead to sins (apogínomai, have no part in, cease from) and live unto righteousness (high standard of moral behaviour 3:14).

2:24b-25a ‘by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray’ Peter again refers to Isaiah 53 but for the first person (we) in Isaiah he substitutes the second person (you) in order to apply it to the slaves he is addressing. They would have been familiar with bruises (discoloured swellings due to a blow from a fist or a whip) so Peter tells them that Christ had borne such brutal treatment without retaliating and as a result of his injuries sinful men have been restored to health.

2:25 As pagans they had wandered astray like sheep but now as Christians they have turned to the Shepherd and Guardian (epískopos, superintendent, overseer) of their souls. He is one whom they can trust to rule and protect them.

Shepherding and overseeing are linked together by the apostle Paul in his address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28: ‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’

1Pet 2:21 The Suffering Shepherd

1 Pet 2:22 The Sinless Shepherd

1 Pet 2:23 The Submissive Shepherd

1 Pet 2:24 The Substitutionary Shepherd

1 Pet 2:25 The Seeking Shepherd (straying sheep returned- sheep have to be brought back)

Exposition

1 PETER 2:11-17 – COMMENTARY

Posted on 3rd Mar 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

2:11-12 RELATIONS WITH NON-CHRISTIANS

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

2:11 This verse begins the second main section of the letter which is mostly exhortation (paraenesis) and advice to the believers of Asia Minor who were experiencing a time of trial. Peter, using the first person singular ‘I’ for the first time in the letter, addresses them as ‘beloved’ (dear friends) and ‘beseeches’ them. ‘beseech’ (parakaléō) Rom 12:1; 1Cor 1:10; 1 Thess 4:1.

He again (1:1) reminds them that they are outsiders and foreigners. The two words do not have quite the same meaning.

pároikos an alien. This is someone who has settled in a foreign country but retains the characteristics of his homeland.

parepídēmos temporary resident. This someone who makes a brief stay in a foreign country but has no intention of taking up permanent residence.

The apostle Paul wrote: ‘But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ’ Phil 3:20 ESV

The author of Hebrews wrote: ‘For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.’

In view of the fact that they are different from those around them, that they do not belong here, Peter exhorts them to ‘abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.’

‘abstain’ see 1 Thess 5;22

‘lusts’ These are the passions (desires in a bad sense, cravings) of the flesh which assault the inner person in order to conquer it and divert it from living to please God. Peter uses the metaphor of war for this inward struggle. strateúomai wage war.

‘fleshly’ – having to do with man’s physical nature as a human being (1:24; 3:18; 4:1,6). The word is morally neutral.

The reason for avoiding these fleshly desires (‘which’ = ‘because they’) is that they war against the soul (psuchḗ, the spiritual part of human beings).

2:12 Peter has in mind immoral behaviour that would ruin their Christian testimony among their pagan neighbours. Having exhorted negatively in v.11 he now puts it positively: ‘see that your lifestyle (cf. Jam 3:13) among the pagans is good.’ Throughout the New Testament Christians are advised to be well thought of by their neighbours (Mt 5:16; Col 4:5; 1 Cor 10:32; 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Tim 3:7; 5:14; 6;1; Tit 2:5-10; 1 Pet 2:15; 3:1, 16).

‘So that ‘whereas’ (in cases where) they speak against you as evildoers’ would suggest that at least some of these believers were under suspicion and that their situation could become perilous.

‘behold’ is a present participle These non-Christians were observing the believers in a continuous or ongoing basis.

‘the day of visitation (episkope)’ This is probably a reference to the Day of Judgement (LXX Isa 10:3). The result of the inquest into how a person has behaved may be punishment (Jer 6:15; 10:15; 11:23). Even if they remained unconverted those vilifying the believers would glorify God on that day.

‘good works’ `Peter refers to ‘doing good’ several times in this letter (2:14-15, 20; 3:6, 17; 4:19) and to ‘conduct’ (1:15, 18; 2;12; 3:1;16).

Although not the main thought here, Peter may have hoped that the good conduct of the believers might lead unbelievers to faith in Christ, he certainly hoped that in the case of wives with pagan husbands in 3:1.

2:13-17 SUBMISSION TO GOVERNMENT

‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.’

From 2:13 – 3:12 Peter, giving practical examples of the ‘good works ‘ of v.12, outlines short codes of behaviour for different classes or groups of people. This was not unusual at that time as the Stoics (e.g. Hierocles, On Duties) set down short codes as to how one ought to behave and manage one’s life. Similar codes are found in the writings of the apostle Paul (Eph 5:21- 6:9; Col 3:18 – 4:1; 1 Tim 2:8-15; Titus 2:1-10).

2:13 The advice starts with a general statement ‘submit yourselves to every human creature.’

‘on account of the Lord’ The same idea is repeated at the beginning of v.15.

hupotássō This means ‘to be subordinate’ or ‘set oneself under’. Christians are to ‘line up under authority;’ willingly choosing to obey others. This verb is used again to slaves (2:18), to wives (3:1), and to young people (5:5).

ktísis this word means ‘creation’ or ‘creature,’ not ‘institution’ as it is sometimes translated by those who view the ‘thing created as having been created by man. The ‘all men’ in v.17 would confirm that it is God’s creatures that are in view rather than a human institution like the Roman empire. The point is that the Christian way of life is not based on self-assertion but on voluntary subordination to others. Having made this general point Peter now moves to the particular:

‘to the emperor as sovereign’

The first example Peter gives is the emperor (secular human authority). Basileús was a title of the emperor (‘king’ Jn 19:15; Acts 17:7; Rev 17:10, 12), or, in the east of the empire, the client kings Rome permitted to reign e.g. in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Pergamum.

The emperor is said to be ‘supreme’ i.e. superior, highest. Although the emperor was the highest ranking human being at the time the Christians were to obey him, not because his power demanded it, but because it pleased God (‘for the Lord’s sake’).

2:14 ‘or to governors under his commission’

hēgemṓn This term would cover imperial officials like governors, consuls, legates, prefects, and ambassadors as well as pro-consuls and procurators who administered less important provinces like Thrace and Judaea.

The role of the government is to mete out justice to criminals and to look approvingly on good citizens. For a Christian’s relations with the government see also Rom 13:1-7; 1 Tim 2:1-4; Tit 3:1-2.

2:15 Peter amplifies what he has said.

‘so’hoútōs thus or in this way. This could refer either back or forward. It probably refers backward as the same word (‘after this manner’) in 3:5 refers back. It is God’s will that Christians obey the government and are among those who do good.

‘well-doing’ agathopoiéō to do what is honourable or upright. Their good works would silence (muzzle 1 Tim 5:18) their detractors. This word phimóō is used metaphorically (Mt 22:34; Mk 1:25; 4:39; 1 Cor 9:9).

‘ignorance’ That the Christians are slandered and misrepresented is because of ignorance on the part of foolish (unbelieving and arrogant) men.

2:16 This verse is a paradox: ‘as free…as God’s slaves.’

‘as free’ eleútheros This nominative adjective sits on its own here with no verb. The NIV translates it as ‘Live as people who are free.’ Although some of them are slaves (v.18f) to an earthly master, all those who whom Peter is writing have been freed by Jesus Christ (Jn 8:31-36; Rom). Although free they must not abuse this liberty so that it becomes licence and ‘a covering for wickedness.’

Those who are literally slaves are God’s slaves first and foremost and those who are literally free are also God’s slaves. They are all God’s slaves because it is he who has redeemed them (1:18).

Freedom in Christ – Mt 17:26; Lk 4:18-21; Jn 8:32; Rom 8:2; 1 Cor 7:22; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1.

2:17 This is a summary verse. The Christian’s social responsibilities are summed up in four injunctions. The first of these imperatives is in the aorist tense, the other three in the present tense. This change of tense may perhaps indicate that the last three are elaborating the first.

‘Honour all’ – obligation to society – social. Christians are to show respect to everyone, i.e people in general. This includes not only other Christians but also pagans and Jews.

Christians are to honour:

God 1 Tim1:17
One another Rom 12:10
Those in authority Rom 13:7
Those least esteemed 1 Cor 12:23-24
Parents Eph 6:2
Wife 1 Pet 3:7
Elders 1 Tim 5:17
Employer 1 Tim 6:1
Needy widows 1 Tim 5:3

‘Love the brotherhood’ – obligation to fellow-Christians – ecclesiastical. The word ‘brotherhood’ (adelphótēs) occurs only here and at 5:9.

Brotherly love is evidence of salvation: Jn 13:35; 1 Thess 4:9; 1 Jn 4:21; 3:14.
Brotherly love is seen in action: Rom 12:10; 1 Jn 3:17; Philemon 7.
Brotherly love must continue Heb 13:1.

‘Fear God’ – Obligation to God – spiritual. God is to be reverenced and deeply respected as the ultimate authority, in a religious sense.

‘Honour the emperor’ – obligation to the state – political. The emperor was to be loyally respected, in a non-religious sense (Rom 13:7). See Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 2:1-2.

A Christian who respects everyone, loves other Christians, fears God and submits himself to civil authorities will be a good witness for Jesus Christ.

Exposition

1 PETER 2:4-10 – COMMENTARY

Posted on 27th Feb 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

2:4-10 THE CHOSEN STONE AND A CHOSEN GENERATION

‘To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.’

2:4 Peter now starts a new section and comes to his main point (vv. 9-10) that the Christian believers, who have been born again and have thus come into a new relationship with God, are members of a new community. They are ‘God’s people’ (v.10).

‘to whom coming’ Some see this as a reference to Psa 34:5 which in LXX reads: ‘Come to him and be enlightened.’

The one to whom they are to come is called a ‘living stone.’ lithos a selected and hewn, not rough like petros. That this is Christ is obvious from vv. 6-8 where Old Testament passages containing the word ‘stone’ are interpreted Christologically.

In the New Testament the church is represented by different metaphors. For example, it is:

A Body – 1 Cor 12:12-27
A Bride – Eph 5:25
A Brotherhood – 1 Pet :17
A Building – M6 16:18; 1 Cor 3:11; 1 Pet 2:5

Peter says several things about Jesus as a stone:

He is a living stone (v.4).
He is a cornerstone (vv.6-7).
He is a rejected stone (v. 4, 7).
He is a stumbling stone (v.8).

All seven occurrences of the stone imagery in the New Testament identify Jesus Christ as the stone (Mt 21:42-44; Mk 12:10-11; Lk 20:17-18; Acts 4:11-12; Rom 9:32-33; Eph 2:20-22; 1Pet 2:4-8).

Jesus the living stone has been rejected by human beings but is chosen and precious in God’s sight. Peter asserts this by drawing from two Old Testament verses.

Psa118:22 (which he quotes in full in v.7). This was originally said of Israel, which was insignificant in the view of greater world powers but was chosen by God. On an earlier occasion Peter had cited this quotation in his preaching as a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion by men and his subsequent resurrection and glorification. Jesus himself had used it in his preaching (Mk 12:10).

Isa 28:16. He goes on to quote this verse in full in v.6.

2:5 ‘ye also’ The same imagery of the ‘stone’ is now applied to the believers, Peter thus links them with the once rejected but now glorified Lord Jesus Christ, ‘living’ may have the idea of resurrection. The contrasting ideas of social exclusion and divine selection feature strongly throughout this section.

‘a spiritual house’ oíkos This word can mean ‘household’ (Acts 10:2; 12:14; 16:15; 1 Cor 1:16; 2 Tim 4:19) but, given the mention of stones, the main thought is house (e,g.Mt 21:13; Lk 11:51), possibly a temple (dwelling place of God, cf. 1 Cor 3:9-17; 2 Cor 6:16). The word ‘house’ can be seen embedded in the verb ‘are built up’ (oikodomeō). The one who is building is God, this is clear from the words ‘to whom coming’ in v4. Some translations take the verb as imperative and translate the verse something like: ‘allow yourselves to be built up.’ The point is that the believers are being embedded into the house by God.

See related ideas in Mt 16:18; Mk 14:58; 15:29; Jn 2:19; Acts 7:48; 18:24; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:20-22; 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 3:2-6; 10:21.

‘spiritual’ This house has been brought into existence by the Holy Spirit and, unlike the material Temple in Jerusalem, will last forever, (cf. Acts 7:48, 17:24).

‘an holy priesthood’ The image changes from the building to those who serve in the building, offering worship i.e. the priesthood. Note that all Christians are viewed here as a body (college, fraternity, hierarchy?) of priests (also v.9). Do all have an equal degree of priesthood? There is no idea here of a separate caste of ordained priests. ‘Holy’ – separated, emphasizes the fact that they are God’s people.

‘spiritual sacrifices’ All Christians exercise priestly functions (see Isa 66:21). Note the repetition of ‘spiritual’ in this verse. The temple is spiritual and so are the sacrifices. These contrast with the material sacrifices that were offered by the Jews and by the pagans. True spiritual worship is dedicating oneself to the Lord, prayer/praise, thanksgiving and sharing e.g. Rom 12:1; Eph 5:2; Phil 4:18; Heb 13:15-16.

Later Old Testament writers were moving towards the idea of worship as spiritual e.g. Psa 50:14; 51:16-19; Psa 69:30-31; Psa 141:2; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6-8.

‘acceptable to God by Jesus Christ’ This worship meets with Gods approval. Does ‘through Jesus Christ’ relate to the verb ‘offer’ or the adjective ‘acceptable?’ It probably refers to the latter. Having emphasized the unity and purpose of believers Peter quotes from the LXX the three Old Testament verses that contain the imagery of the stone (Psa 118:22-23; Isa 8:14-15; 28:16). Two of them he has already alluded to in v. 4.

2:6

Isaiah 28:16 ‘Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.’

THE STONE PLACED IN ZION

Isaiah was addressing the rulers of Judah which was under threat of Assyrian attack during the reign of Hezekiah c. 715-697 BCE. It eventually took place in 701 BCE. The leaders spurned Isaiah’s advice and allied with Egypt. He reprimanded them for trusting in false gods, military prowess and political alliances rather than in God. Their true safety lay in confidence in God. All that they needed could be found in Sion.

The Hebrew original says ‘will not be in haste’ i.e. will not have to flee. The LXX says ‘he who has faith in it will not be put to shame’ i.e. will not be disappointed. The precious corner stone to be laid in Zion was thought to be a great king and was this passage was therefore regarded by Jews as a messianic prediction. The early Christians viewed it as a Christological prediction, Jesus Christ being that promised Messiah. They would have associated ‘living’ v.4 with his resurrection.

2:7

Psa 118:22 ‘The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.’

THE REJECTED BUT HONOURED CORNER STONE

Peter applies this to the Christians. Christ was precious to them because they believed; faith being the key issue here. The persecutors lack faith (are disobedient, refuse belief – see also 3:1; 4:17) but the stone that they have rejected will be made the head of the corner. The honour will belong to the Christians, contrasts with the shame of v.6.

2:8

THE STONE OF STUMBLING

Isa 8:14 ‘And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.‘

The stone becomes an obstacle over which those who do not believe stumble and fall. They would trip over it and fall headlong to destruction. Isaiah was saying that for those who trust in him the Lord (the stone or rock) will be a refuge. Peter uses the prophet’s words to pick up on what will happen to those who do not believe. By being disobedient to the word (message of the gospel) they reject Christ and therefore stumble and sin. No-one can step round or over the stone, everyone who encounters Christ has a decision to make; whether to believe in him or reject him. One brings salvation, the other destruction.

For those who reject him, Peter says this is ‘the lot to which (eis ho) they were appointed. Is the appointment to disbelief or is it to retribution as a consequence of rejecting Christ? Jobes (2005) comments:

‘Rejection of Christ does not excuse one from the purview of God; rather, it confirms that one has not (yet) been born again into the living hope of which Peter speaks. This is not to say that Peter teaches that those in disobedience to the word at one point in time are forever excluded from the hope of salvation. To the contrary, he admonishes his readers to live in such a way as to persuade unbelievers to accept the gospel of Christ (e.g., 2:12; 3:1). However, ultimate destiny rests on whether one eventually accepts God’s mercy as extended in Christ. Those who persist in their rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ will inevitably find themselves themselves shamed by the ultimate judgment of God.’

In these verses about the stone it seems that Peter is not particularly concerned with where the stone is placed, his main point is that it is both chosen and honoured. In v.6 it is a foundation stone (chief corner stone), in v.7 it is a keystone (up high), in v.8 it is on the ground.

2:9-10 THE PEOPLE OF GOD

‘But ye’ Peter leaves the thought of what will happen to those who reject Christ and returns to his main concern; the Asian believers who have believed in Christ. The words ‘you, however’ is emphatic. They will not be ashamed, they will share in Christ’s honour. Peter uses titles of Israel, God’s chosen people, to describe the Christians. Again he picks up on the idea of them having been chosen.

Peter conflates Exodus 19:6 (‘and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’) and Isa 43:20 in LXX (‘my chosen race, the people which I have made my possession to declare my mighty deeds’).

a chosen race – a race descended from a common ancestor – he views Christians as forming a new race of people.
a royal priesthood – these are two nouns beside each other without adjectives; basíleion is neuter and means ‘a royal residence’ or ‘capital’, it can denote sovereignty, crown, monarchy or palace. hieráteuma is priesthood. Often they are translated as an adjective and a noun i.e ‘royal priesthood.’ If translated separately then ‘a royal house and a priesthood’ (see Rev 1:6).
a holy nation – a people set apart for God.
a people for God’s special possession (cp. Mal 3:17)

‘shew forth the praises’ (aretḗs) means either virtues (moral qualities) or the ability to perform mighty deeds and miracles. Here it is the manifestation of God’s power in his savings acts (Acts 2 :11). Peter is alluding to Isaiah 43:21 but in the middle of v. 9 used the second person plural (‘you’) to apply the quotation to his readers.

‘him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’ The contrast between darkness and light is a reference to their conversion (‘called’ 1 Pet 1:15; 2:21; 3:9; 5:10). It is a new act of creation (cp Gen 1:1-5, Ron 4:17; 2 Cor 4:6). It is always God the Father who calls.

For ‘darkness’ see Rom 13:12; Eph 5:14; Heb 6:4; 10:32.

For ‘light’ see Jn 12:35; Acts 26:18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:12; 1 Thess 5:5; 1 Jn 1:5-2:11.

Identification v. 9 – we are to think of ourselves as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation and a peculiar people.
Intention – v.9 that we should proclaim God’s praises – evangelise.
Intervention – v.10 not a people, without mercy (the past), now God’s people, have obtained mercy (the present)
Imperative – v.11 abstain from fleshly lusts

2:10 Notice the two-fold occurrence of ‘once —– but now’ in this verse.

Once ‘not a people’ —– now ‘God’s people.’

Once ‘without mercy’ —– now ‘have obtained mercy.’

Peter here conflates several texts from the prophecy of Hosea which have to do with the God-given but unusual names for Hosea’s children by Gomer. One was called Lo-ammi (Not-my-people), another was named Lo-ruhamah (Who-has-not-received-mercy. The relevant texts are:

‘Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi [Not-my-people]: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.’ Hosea 1:9

‘Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.’ Hosea 1:10

‘And she conceived again, and bore a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah [Who-has-not-received-mercy]: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.’ Hosea 1:6

‘And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.’ Hosea 2:23

Hosea was prophesying that God’s people (Israel) were no longer functioning as his special possession because they had rejected him and worshipped false gods. They would therefore be sent into exile. Hosea, however, also prophesied that there would be a future restoration. This was traditionally thought to predict a future restoration of Israel but Peter here interprets that as having been fulfilled in the conversion to Christ of the Christians of Asia Minor. Through accepting the gospel, they had become God’s people, that was their new identity in Christ.

N.B. the apostle Paul also conflates Hos 2:23 and Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:25-26. The two New Testament authors use the texts in different ways, also Paul quotes a version which read ‘who was not beloved’ instead of ‘who had not received mercy.’

See my comments on Rom 9:6-29

Exposition

‘ALL ISRAEL’: THE CHURCH, THE NATION OR THE REMNANT?

Posted on 23rd Feb 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

A Critical Analysis of Paul’s use of ‘All Israel’ in Romans 11:26

INTRODUCTION

Having completed three missionary journeys to the East the Apostle Paul began to turn his attention towards the West (Romans 15:24, 28), thus necessitating a change of base from Antioch to Rome. Since he had not founded the Roman church he wrote and sent a letter introducing himself and mentioning his forthcoming visit. Wishing to enlist their prayerful support for his planned trip to Spain (15:24-30) he outlined his theological position (1:16-11:36). It seems that Paul was aware of disunity in the church at Rome caused by Gentile arrogance towards the Jewish believers so in the letter he also addressed some of the practical issues in the Roman congregations.

BACKGROUND

In the first eight chapters Paul set out God’s plan of redemption in Jesus Christ. In the early days of the church it seemed as though Jewish people were very responsive to the gospel about Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41, 4:4) but their leaders opposed the message and before long persecution of the church began, with many believers scattering across the Roman Empire (Acts 8:1-4). Gentiles began to convert to Christianity while the Jews were opposed to it. Although Jesus was a Jew, his own people had generally rejected him as saviour. The Christians at Rome must have wondered what would happen to the promises God had made to Israel. Would God go back on his word? Would Israel be rejected forever in favour of a church composed largely of Gentiles? Could God’s redemptive plan be complete without Israel?
This problem of Jewish hostility had much more at stake than just what would happen to the promises to Israel. In question was the reliability of God’s word and his ability to bring his plans to fruition. Dunn (2006, p.501) observes:

‘What was at stake was nothing less than God’s own integrity, the faithfulness of God. How could Paul offer God’s covenant righteousness so freely to Gentiles without calling in question God’s covenant with Israel? And if God’s purpose for Israel had been so frustrated, what assurance did that give to Christian believers?’

Munck (1967, p.34) similarly assesses the significance of the problem:

‘The unbelief of the Jews is not merely a missionary problem that concerned the earliest mission to the Jews, but a fundamental problem for all Christian thought in the earliest church. Israel’s difficulty is a difficulty for all Christians, both Jewish and Gentile. If God has not fulfilled his promises made to Israel, then what basis has the Jewish-Gentile church for believing that the promises will be fulfilled for them?’

Paul sets out to address these issues, and to insist on the integrity of God’s dealings with Israel, in Romans 9-11. Thus these chapters are not a parenthesis in the letter but their content is central to Paul’s argument. Paul defends the righteousness of God in his dealings with Israel, arguing that God has spared the nation in the past (chapter 9), has provided salvation for it in the present (chapter 10) and will work out his plans for it in the future (chapter 11).

BACKGROUND TO ROMANS 11:26

Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

Paul raises the issue of the rejection of Israel in 11:1 and denies such a suggestion. In verses 2-6 he mentions the concept of a remnant and in verses 7-10 speaks of ‘the rest’ of Israel which has been ‘hardened’ (11:7). He (vv.2-6) refers to the OT story of Elijah and sees in this a pledge of what is to happen at ‘the present time’, thus indicating the existence of a contemporary remnant, proving that God had not totally rejected his people. He contrasts faith and works (11:6), concluding that salvation is by grace and not by human effort. In vv. 7-10 the spiritually insensitive bulk of Israel, ‘the rest’, are said to be ‘hardened’, a state which Paul attributes to an act of God. As ‘proof’ that that was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies two OT quotations (Deut. 29:4, Psalm 69:22-23) which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8,10). These he presents as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, deliberately punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. At this stage such a pessimistic note would seem to confirm the suggestion raised in verse one that God has rejected his people.

Despite painting this bleak picture of the Jews’ situation Paul strikes a note of optimism. They had indeed stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Verse 11a identifies the key issue: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total, he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final (11:11-24) and that restoration is a certainty (11:25-32). Paul has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites, with the spiritual advantage of the covenants and the promises, had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) conjectures as to the reasons for this Gentile attitude and Paul’s annoyance:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

Paul must have thought that the Gentile believers at Rome were wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews. He tells them (11:13) that he sees his mission to the Gentiles as important for the salvation of Jews. He wanted to ‘exalt’ (11:13) his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy and bring about their conversion. He warns them against spiritual pride, telling them that the rejection of the gospel by the Jews meant ‘riches for the world’ and that their acceptance would mean ‘life from the dead’.

Employing a metaphor of an olive tree to represent the Jews Paul imagined cultivated branches being broken off (unbelieving Jews) and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He warns the Gentiles that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. Paul is optimistic (v23) stating that if the Jews believe, they could be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Still addressing Gentile believers, he (11:25-32) describes God’s dealing with Israel as a ‘mystery’ which includes the fact that a ‘hardening’ has come on the unbelieving Israelites. This hardening would end with the completion of the Gentile mission (v25), ‘and so all Israel will be saved’ (v26).

The purpose of this paper is to present a critical analysis of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26.Various interpretations have been posed for ‘all Israel’ but most are found, upon analysis, to be variations of one of the following three: the church, the nation or the remnant.

MAJOR ISSUES

Two major interpretative issues relating to verse 26 immediately present themselves. The first is the meaning of ‘all Israel’. Does it refer to ethnic Jews or to the Church (all believers both Jew and Gentile)? The second is the time and manner of Israel’s salvation. Is it a long term process in tandem with the salvation of Gentiles in this era or an eschatological event that will occur in the future and only after the full number of Gentiles has come in? If the latter, will it inaugurate the eternal state or will it usher in the Millennial Kingdom? The disagreement on these issues over the years has led Moo (1996, p.719) to describe the opening words of v.26 as ‘the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9-11 and of the NT teaching about the Jews and their future.’ The fundamental question is whether Israel has a place in God’s future plans or has instead been replaced by the Church. This paper will therefore seek to examine the three main views on the subject in an attempt to ascertain the identity of ‘all Israel’, the time of all Israel’s salvation and the way in which it is achieved.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE CHURCH

Some theologians understand ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 to be the Church, which they view as the new spiritual Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles. This treats the phrase as a metaphor and was the view expressed by Calvin (1836, p.475) who maintained:

‘I extend the sense of the word Israel to the whole people of God, and thus interpret it:- When the gentiles shall have entered into the Church, and the Jews, at the same time, shall betake themselves to the obedience of faith…the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be collected from both, will thus be completed.’

More recently this is the position held by Barth (1968) and also by Wright (1991, p.250) who asserts:

‘What Paul is saying is this. God’s method of saving ‘all Israel’ is to harden ethnic Israel (cp.9.14 ff.), i.e., not to judge her at once, so as to create a period of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken, during the course of which it remains God’s will that the present ‘remnant’ of believing Jews might be enlarged by the process of ‘jealousy’, and consequent faith, described above. This whole process is God’s way of saving his whole people.’

Both Calvin (‘the whole people of God’) and Wright (‘his whole people’) make a valid point that fits with the occasional nature of the Roman epistle. The Roman church was divided and part of Paul’s purpose in writing the letter was to call for unity; a unity that would doubtless serve his own short-term goals but that would also advance the mission of the whole Christian church. Bruce (2000, p.389) comments:

‘Paul was certainly aware of differences in attitude and practice which might set up tensions if brotherly consideration were not exercised; that is why he urges all the groups so earnestly to give one another the same welcome as they had all received from Christ, “for the glory of God”. Thus a sense of spiritual unity would be fostered.’

The readership/audience would have noticed the verbal marker (‘I do not want you to be ignorant…, brothers,’ 11:25)) that introduced the statement ‘all Israel will be saved’ and would have thought back to the opening greeting (‘I do not want you to be unaware, brothers’ 1:13). This formula in Romans 1:13 precedes comments on the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. Might not its use in Romans 11:25 do likewise?

That it might do is borne out by a glance at some of the OT occurrences of ‘all Israel’. Exodus 18:25 says:

‘He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.’

That all Israel here included Gentiles may be inferred from Exodus 12:38 (‘Many other people went up with them,’). Gentiles were also included in the ‘all Israel’ of Deut 31:11-12:

When all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people— men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns — so that they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.’

In Deut 29:2 the ‘all Israel’ that was established as ‘his people’ (v.13) included ‘the aliens living in your camps’ (v.11).

It is significant that in Romans 11:1 Paul asks; ‘Did God reject his people?’ It may be that ‘his people’ in 1:11 equates to ‘all Israel’ (11:26a) and to ‘Jacob’ (11:26b).

This thought is further suggested by the use of ‘all’ in the Roman letter. The apostle seems to emphasize the togetherness of Jews and Gentiles throughout and stresses this both negatively, as united under sin (1:18; 2:1; 3:4, 9, 19, 20, 23; 5:12,18; 8:22; 11:32; 14:10), and positively, as united in belief (1:16; 2:10; 3:22; 4:11, 16; 5:18; 9:5; 10:4, 11,12,13; 11:26, 32).

In addition Paul goes on to speak of the ‘strong’ and ‘the weak’ and in that context (15:5-12) to encourage the unity of both Jew and Gentile in the worship of God; using a series of OT quotations (15:9, 10, 11, 12) to back up his point. The unity is stressed even as the letter ends with the two uses of ‘all’ relating to Jew and Gentile in the greetings of chapter 16: ‘all the churches of the Gentiles’ (16:4) and ‘all the churches of Christ’ (16:16).
In the expression ‘And so all Israel will be saved’ Paul may not be thinking nationally or even eschatologically but simply stressing the unity of the people of God in salvation with a view to seeing that unity restored in the Christian community at Rome.

Although interesting and thought-provoking it is difficult to concur with the view that ‘all Israel’ refers to the whole people of God given that it assigns to ‘Israel’ a meaning which is unsupported elsewhere in Romans, or indeed in the New Testament, with the possible but unlikely exception of Galatians 6:16. The term usually refers to Israel as a whole, or is sometimes narrowed down to refer to a part of Israel. It is never widened to include Gentiles. ‘Israel’ is used eleven times in Romans 9-11 (9:6, 27, 31; 10:1, 19, 21; 11: 2, 7, 25) before 11:26 and in each of these occurrences it refers to either ethnic Israel or a part of it, set in contrast with the Gentiles (there is no such contrast in Galatians 6). Having consistently maintained a distinction between ethnic Israel and Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 and having used it ethnically in the first part of the sentence in v.25 it is unlikely that Paul would make such a fundamental shift in meaning (Jews and Gentiles) in the second part of the sentence in v.26a.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE NATION

The majority viewpoint is that ‘all Israel’ refers to ethnic Israel as a whole, but not necessarily every individual. Dunn (1988, p.681) offers an interesting definition: ‘a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions.’

According to this scenario ‘all Israel’ points to the majority of Jews alive on earth just before the Second Coming of Christ who, after the full number of Gentiles has been saved, turn to faith in Christ in a worldwide, large-scale, mass conversion. Cranfield (1985, p.282) sees the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in ‘three successive stages in the divine plan of salvation’; the unbelief of Israel, the completion of the coming in of the Gentiles and the salvation of Israel. He explains (p.282):

‘With regard to this last clause three things must be mentioned. First, ‘thus’ is emphatic; it will be in the circumstances obtaining when the first two stages have been fulfilled, and only so and then, that ‘all Israel shall be saved’. Secondly, the most likely explanation of ‘all Israel’ is that it means the nation of Israel as a whole, though not necessarily including every individual member. Thirdly, we understand ‘shall be saved’ to refer to a restoration of the nation of Israel to God at the end of history, an eschatological event in the strict sense.’

Those supporting this viewpoint point out that Romans 11 begins with Paul’s’ question ‘I ask then: Did God reject his people?’, with the ‘then’ referring back to what has just been stated in 10:19-21 about national disobedience. ‘His people’ is therefore understood as the nation of Israel. Paul’s answer to his own question (‘I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.’) might suggest this as he does not speak in terms of faith in Christ but in terms of his own physical Jewish descent, indicating that he is thinking in national terms.

Paul goes on to speak of the remnant and of the rest who have been hardened. The fact that there is a remnant is seen as a positive sign for the nation of Israel. Moo (1996, p.677) comments: ‘For God’s preservation of a remnant is not only evidence of his present faithfulness to Israel; it is also a pledge of hope for the future of the people.’ The metaphor of the Olive tree (11:16-20) is also seen as pointing to a restoration of national Israel as it emphasizes the corporate nature of Israel’s election in the picture of the root, representing Abraham and the patriarchs, which imparts its character to the branches (as does the lump of dough in 11:16). That God loves Israel because of the patriarchs is explicitly stated in 11:28.

In addition Paul proclaims (11:12) that Israel’s present ‘loss’ will at some future point become ‘fullness’. Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’ and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; with added benefits for the world, thus pointing forward to v.26. In v.15 the ‘rejection’ of Israel is contrasted with their future ‘acceptance’, a change of status which will result in ‘life from the dead’ (happy life after resurrection or a time of great spiritual quickening). According to Moo (1996, p.695) ‘These descriptions suggest that “life from the dead” must be an event distinct from Israel’s restoration, involving the whole world, and occurring at the very end of history.’ That the world is a benefactor suggests a future time of blessing, a worldwide spiritual revival, following the conversion of Israel. This requires an extension of history (i.e. an earthly Millennial Kingdom) rather than the Eternal State.

Paul backs up his declaration of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ by a proof text (‘the deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins’) which consists of Isaiah 59:21a linked with Isaiah 27:9. This composite quotation assures the forgiveness of Jacob’s sins and mentions the covenant, which was national.

Assuming that ‘Jacob’ is a synonym for Israel as a nation then the ‘Jacob’ of v.26b must equate to the ‘all Israel’ of v26a. Paul is thus pointing to Israel’s national forgiveness as an indication of national restoration and expressing an eschatological expectation that, following a period of rejection as a result of Israel’s sin, the nation would become the focus of divine action once again.

According to this viewpoint Israel’s national salvation will follow the coming in of the Gentiles (11:25-26a). Proponents usually proceed to construct a timetable for God’s dealings with Israel as a nation and with the Gentile world. The details are not within the remit of this paper but the main elements perhaps deserve a mention in that they relate to the perceived timing of the salvation of ‘all Israel’.

Following the era when the Gentiles are saved (Acts 15:14) the fortunes of Israel will be restored. The nation will have perpetual existence (Jer. 31:38-40) and Jerusalem will be fully controlled by Israelites (Luke 21:24). The latter is closely associated with the Second Coming (Luke 21:24-28) which, the suggestion is, can only occur subsequent to Israel’s conversion (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 3:19-21; Matt.23:39). Zechariah 13:9, when a third of the people will be saved, is set in the Great Tribulation, just before the Lord’s Coming (Zech.14:4) and just before the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom (Zech. 14:9-21). It would therefore appear that the salvation of ‘all Israel’ will occur during the Great Tribulation, just before the Second Coming.

This interpretation, which views Israel’s rejection as partial and temporary, is misleading as the point Paul is emphasizing throughout is that God has not rejected Israel. In spite of ongoing hostility and disobedience and the loss resulting from divine hardening Israel has not been rejected by God.

This viewpoint is also misleading as it suggests a difference between physical Israel and the Church in the matter of salvation and stresses a literal fulfilment of prophecy about Israel. It suggests that there are two distinct people groups belonging to God, Israel and the Church, each with different destinies and posits that all OT prophecies about Israel are for the literal Israel. This view that ‘all Israel ‘ is the nation is problematic for those who believe that the Church is the culmination of God’s saving plan and that it is trans-national and trans-ethnic.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE REMNANT (ACCUMULATED ELECT OF ISRAEL)

According to this view ‘all Israel’ refers to the elect of ethnic Israel throughout history. Israel will experience a partial hardening to the end of time (‘until the full number of the Gentiles has come in’) but God will always save a remnant of Jews. This view also allows for a large number of Jews turning to Christ at the end of the age but without a national or territorial restoration. The ‘mystery’ in 11:25 is not the fact of the remnant’s salvation but the manner in which they are saved. ‘And so’ (11:26a) means ‘in this manner’ and refers back to the arousal of Jews to envy so that some might turn to Christ for salvation (11:11-13).

This viewpoint is in harmony with the context of Romans 9-11 which, scholars acknowledge, form a unit in Romans. In chapter 9 Paul maintains that God is faithful to his promises in spite of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah Jesus and in v.6 states ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ thus showing that God’s promise was not to save Abraham’s descendants on the basis of national identity. The true Israel consists of children of the promise, rather than ethnic Jews. In 10:2 Paul further writes ‘For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,’ again showing that, as regards salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

A separate plan of salvation for Israel would run contrary to this assertion. God’s promises are not fulfilled in the nation but in the spiritual remnant. Wright (1991, p.236) highlights the problem of integration:

‘Put simply, the issue is this: if Paul rejects the possibility of a status of special privilege for Jews in chs. 9 and 10, how does he manage, apparently, to reinstate such a position in ch.11? It is this apparent inconsistency that has led many to suggest that the section contains a fundamental self-contradiction, which is then explained either as a resurgence of patriotic sentiment (Dodd) or the vagaries of apocalyptic fantasy (Bultmann). As we have already hinted, the real crux of the issue lies not so much in 11 as a whole, but in 11.25-27; the regular interpretation of that passage as predicting a large-scale last-minute salvation of ‘Israel’, worked out in terms of the chapter as a whole, leads to this charge.’

In the immediate context of ‘all Israel will be saved’ the apostle asked two questions; ‘I ask then: Did God reject his people?’ (11:1) and ‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ (11:11). He is not asking if God has dispensed with ethnic Israel as regards a special plan for the future but is asking if the Jews have totally forfeited their past privileges and if there is now any hope that God will continue to save Jews. In answer to the question in v.1 Paul presents his own salvation as proof that God was still saving Jews. His answer relates to the present, not the future.

Paul’s thinking is focussed on the present, not on the long-range future. The contemporary nature of Romans 11 is striking. V5 speaks of ‘the present time’, in which there is a ‘remnant’ (vv2-4) and also those who were ‘hardened’ vv.8-10. Paul ‘exalts’ his ministry (v.13) in order to save people in his own day (v.14). The Gentiles whom he was addressing were his contemporaries and it was the salvation of contemporary Gentiles that he hoped would provoke Jewish contemporaries to jealousy and salvation. His ministry was not to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring about a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel. The branches broken off are contemporary Israelites and the engrafted Gentiles are contemporary. This is explicitly confirmed by the threefold ‘now’ in Paul’s comments in vv. 30-31. It is ‘now’ (in Paul’s day), that Israel is receiving mercy. Das (2003, p.118) maintains that:

‘Paul views Israel’s impending restoration as potentially imminent: “Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their [Israel’s] disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you , they too may now receive mercy” (Romans 11:30-31). “Now” is the day of Israel’s salvation. Paul speaks of Israel’s present obtaining of mercy. He hopes, by his own missionary activity to the Gentiles, to bring about the salvation of the Jews (11:14). Perhaps this may explain why he wanted to travel to Spain, the western end of the known (Gentile) world (15:22-24). He may have viewed the creation of a Gentile Christian community in Spain as the final step in completing the “fullness” of Gentile salvation, thereby triggering all Israel’s salvation. By reaching the entire Gentile world, Paul believes he will see the day when God’s plan for Israel will be finally and fully realized.’

Some object to this view on the grounds that ‘Israel’ in v.26 ought to have the same meaning as ‘Israel’ in v.25 which clearly refers to ethnic Israel (the remnant plus the hardened). This, however, appears to be Paul’s pattern of expression as in Romans he has already used ‘Israel’ to refer to both the nation and the elect within the nation (‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’) in 9:6, in one sentence. Wright (1991, p.250) agrees that:

‘It is impermissible to argue that ‘Israel’ cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that ‘Israel’ in v. 25 must mean the same as ‘Israel’ in v. 26: Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two ‘Israels’, and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25–9) … he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of ‘Israel’ to the Messiah and his people.’

CONCLUSION

In Romans 9-11 Paul discussed the failure of Israel to respond to the Christian gospel and addressed the issue of the place of Jews in God’s purposes. The climax of his discussion is reached in 11:26a with the assertion ‘And so all Israel will be saved.’
Paul insisted that Israel’s failure to believe was no indicator of a failure on God’s part to keep his promises. He warned his Gentile readers against arrogance toward Israel and described God’s manner of saving Israel by using saved Gentiles to cause jealousy among remnant Jews, driving them to faith in the Messiah.

Thus a remnant from ethnic Israel will be continue to be saved until the Lord returns, in tandem with believing Gentiles. When the full number of Gentiles has come in so too ‘all Israel’ (the full number of remnant Jews) will have been saved.

Paul’s strange, and some might say absurd (see Käsemann, 1994, p.304), optimism in the face of disappointed hope and his confidence in God’s sovereignty ought to be an encouragement to Christians today. Western society is materialistic and secular. It would appear that the gospel has become powerless. The same anxiety that Paul experienced over this apparent failure remains with us today. Batey (1966, p.228) wisely observes:

‘It is in just such a situation that one finds himself sharing Paul’s basic concern and challenged by his decision for faith. In spite of the evidence around him, the Christian is challenged to affirm with the Apostle that God is and shall be sovereign over the destiny of man. As long as there is disbelief the man of faith seeks through the foolishness of preaching to effect reconciliation. Paul was not naïve, but he looked at defeat and saw final victory.’

There is confidence and optimism to be drawn from this expression of hope by Paul for the salvation of his fellow countrymen through faith in Jesus Christ: ‘and so all Israel will be saved.’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barth, K. 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Oxford University Press US

Bateman, H. W. 1999, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bell, R. H. 1994, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin & Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11, Coronet Books Inc., Philadelphia

Bloomfield, P. 2009, What the Bible Teaches about the Future, Evangelical Press, Carlisle

Borchert, G. L. & Mohrlang, R. 2007, Romans, Galatians (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Illinois

Brauch, M. T. 1989, Hard Sayings of Paul, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Bruce, F.F. 2000, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bryan, C. 2000, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting, Oxford University Press US, New York

Byrne, B. 1996, Romans, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Calvin, J. 1834, Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, (trans. by Sibson. F), L. B. Seeley and Sons, London

Cranfield, C.E.B. 1985, Romans, a Shorter Commentary, W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan

Dahl, N. A. 1977, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, Augsburg Press, Minneapolis

Das, A. A. 2004, Paul and the Jews, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Diprose, R. E. 2000, Israel and the Church – The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology, Paternoster, Milton Keynes

Donaldson, T.L. 1997, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Donfried, K.P. 2002, The Romans Debate, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Dunn, J. D.G. 1988, Romans 9-16, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN

Dunn, J. D.G. 2006, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Edwards, J.R. 1992, Romans, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Ellis, P. F. 1982, Seven Pauline Letters, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Ellison, H. L. 1976, The Mystery of Israel, Paternoster Press, Exeter

Gadenz, P. T. 2009, Called from the Jews & from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9-11, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Harrington, D. J. 2001, The Church according to the New Testament: what the Wisdom and Witness of Early Christianity Teach us Today, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

Hendriksen, W. 1981, Romans: 9-16, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh

Hoeksema, H. 2002, Righteous By Faith Alone, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Michigan

Horner, B. E. 2007, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, B&H Academic, Nashville

Hunter, A. M. 1955, The Epistle to the Romans, SCM Press, London

Käsemann, E. 1994, Commentary on Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids

Kreloff, S. A. 2006, God’s Plan For Israel – A Study of Romans 9-11, Kress Christian Publications

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. 1999, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 11 To God’s Glory, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh

Moo, D. 1996, Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament Series, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Morris, L. 1988, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Munck, J. 1967, Christ & Israel: an Interpretation of Romans 9-11, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Nanos, M. D. 1996, The Mystery of Romans: the Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Philip, J. 1987, The Power of God – An Exposition of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nicholas Gray Publishing, Glasgow

Robertson, O. P. 2000, The Israel of God – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, P & R Publishing, New Jersey

Sanders, E.P. 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Schnabel, E .J. 2008, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

Schreiner, T. 1998, Romans, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Scott, J.M. 2001, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, BRILL, Leiden

Shedd, W. G. T. 1978, Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on Romans, Klock & Klock, Minneapolis

Smith, C. L. 2009, The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supercessionism- Resources for Christians, King’s Divinity Press, Lampeter, UK

Stendahl, K. 1976, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Stuhlmacher, P. 1994, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Commentary, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Thielman, F. 1989, From Plight to Solution: a Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, Brill Archive, Leiden

Walters, J.C. 1993, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg Pennsylvania

Witherington III, B. 1998, The Paul Quest: the Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, Inter-Varsity Press, Westmont, Illinois

Witherington III, B. 2004, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Wright, N. T. 1991, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Aus, R.D. 1979, Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the “Full Number of the Gentiles” of Rom. XI 25, Novum Testamentum, Vol.21, pp. 232-262

Batey, R. 1966, So all Israel will be saved: an interpretation of Romans 11:25-32, Interpretation, Vol. 20, pp.218-228

Baxter, A. G. & Ziesler J. A. 1985, Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:25-32, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 24, pp. 95-123

Cook, M. J. 2006, Paul’s Argument in Romans 9-11, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 91-111

Cooper, C. 1978, Romans 11:23, 26, Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 84-94

Cosgrove, C. H. 1996, Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9-11: A Study in Polyvalence and Hermeneutical Election, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 271-287

Dinkler, E. 1956, The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans Chapters 9-11: A Contribution to the Problem of Pre-Destination and Individual Responsibility, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 109-127

Esler, P. F. 2003, Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olive Tree Image in Romans 11, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 26, pp. 103-124

Getty, M. A. 1988, Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9-11, CBQ, Vol. 50, pp. 456-469

Glancy, J. 1991, Israel Vs. Israel in Romans 11:25-32, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 54, pp.191-203

Johnson, D G. 1984, The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11, CBQ, Vol. 46, pp.91-103

Litwak, K. 2006, One or Two Views of Judaism: Paul in Acts 28 and Romans 11 on Jewish Unbelief, Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 57, pp. 229-249

Longenecker, B. W. 1989, Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, The Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9-11, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 36, pp. 95-123

Merkle, B. L. 2000, Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 43, pp. 709-721

Sanders, E. P. 1978, Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXIII, pp.175-187

Spencer, F.S. 2006, Metaphor, Mystery and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11: Paul’s Appeal to Humility and Doxology, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 113-138

Van der Horst, P. W. 2000, “Only then will All Israel be Saved”: A Short Note on the Meaning of kai and οuτως in Romans 11:26, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 521-525

Vanlaningham, M.G. 1992, Romans 11:25-27 and the Future of Israel in Paul’s Thought, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.3, pp.141-174

Waymeyer, M. 2005, The Dual Status of Israel in Romans 11:28, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.16, pp.57-71

Zoccali, C. 2008, ‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 30, pp. 289-318

Ziglar, T. 2003, Understanding Romans 11:26: Baptist Perspectives, Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. Spring 2003, pp. 38-51

Exposition

1 PETER 1:13 – 2:3 – COMMENTARY

Posted on 22nd Feb 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Peter exhorts the believers regarding their obligations in light of the benefits of salvation that he has outlined in 1:3-12. These are:

1:3 a great hope

1:4 a great inheritance

1:5 a great protection

1:6-8 a great joy

1:9 a great promise

1:10-12 a great privilege

The main obligation of the believer is to live a holy life.

The Holy Life. – ‘gird up’ and ‘grow up’

The Christian needs to ‘gird up:’

With hope v.13

With holiness vv.14-16

With prayer v.17

With knowledge vv.18-21

With love vv.22-25

Peter presents the appropriate response to the great benefits of salvation by the believers in a series of four imperatives:

a) 1:13 ‘hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you’

b) 1:15 ‘be ye holy in all manner of conversation’

c) 1:22 ‘love one another with a pure heart fervently’

d) 2:2 ‘desire the sincere milk of the word’

Imperative a) ‘hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you’

[13] ‘wherefore’ dió for this reason. Refers back to what has been stated in vv. 3-12. Two participial phrases follow. Strictly speaking these are adverbial and not imperative but since the main verb (elpízō) is in the imperative mood they are usually translated as imperatives.

‘girding up the loins of your mind’ i.e. get your minds ready for action. This is how they will set their hope fully, with this mental attitude. Girding refers to the practice of tucking a long robe into the belt in preparation for a task; so as to be able to move more freely (Ex 12:11; Lk 12:35). This may be a deliberate reference to the Old Testament story of the Exodus. Other examples of this practice are Elijah preparing to run (1 Kgs 18:46), Jeremiah getting ready to prophesy (Jer 1:17) and a slave preparing to wait at a table (Lk 17:8). Peter alludes to the Old Testament many times throughout this epistle.

‘mind’ (diánoia) thoughts, intellect

‘being sober ‘ (nḗphō) i.e. self-controlled ( also 4:7; 5:8). This is how they will prepare their minds for action. Self-control or temperance is freedom from any sort of intoxication. It therefore brings clarity of mind.

‘fix your (plural) hope’ J. N. D. Kelly comments: ‘The imperative is aorist (elpisate), the tense striking a more urgent, insistent note than the present would: not just ‘hope’, but ‘fix your hope purposefully.’

‘to the end’ (teleíōs) complete, perfect. i.e fully set your hope. The idea here is of assurance. The believers can confidently expect that what is hoped for will definitely come to pass.

I have taken the adverb with ‘set your hope’ rather than ‘be sober’ but it is not clear which it should go with. It could be read as either ‘set your hope absolutely’ or ‘be absolutely sober.’

They are to focus on the ‘grace’ that will be brought to them at the revelation of Jesus Christ. This grace that Jesus will bring at his unveiling is their salvation (v.5). Note that Peter again makes it clear that salvation is a divine work,

EXCURSUS: SOME THOUGHTS ON ‘THOUGHTS’ AND ‘MIND’

THOUGHTS

i. Our thoughts are known to God.

‘for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts.’ 1 Chron 28:9

‘Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.’ Psa 139:2

ii. Our thoughts can be counter-productive.

‘Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.’ Rom 1:21

iii. Our thoughts need to be controlled.

‘Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;’ 2 Cor 10:5

iv. Our thoughts should be good thoughts.

‘Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.’ Phil 4:8

MIND

i. The carnal mind.

‘Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.’ Rom 8:7

ii. The Christ-like mind.

‘For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.’ 1 Cor 2:16

iii. The unsettled mind.

‘Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand’ 2 Thess 2:1-2

iv. The embattled mind.

‘But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.’ Rom 7:23

v. The renewed mind.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.’ Rom 12:2

vi. The determined mind.

‘Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;’ 1 Pet 4:1

vii. The sound mind.

‘For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.’ 2 Tim 1:7

Imperative b) ‘be ye holy in all manner of conversation’

[14] Based on the fact that they are now related to God as his children Peter impresses upon the believers the fact that new life involves a new lifestyle. He says that they are to act as obedient children (lit. children of obedience). In 1:1 they have already been set apart by the Spirit for obedience. “children of’ is an idiom which expresses an outstanding characteristic or quality e.g. Deut 13;13; 2 Sam 7:10; Mt 8:12; Mk 2:19; Eph 2:2).

The negative: ‘Not fashioning yourselves’

suschēmatízō fashion in accordance with, fashion according to a pattern i.e. conform. The only other occurrence is in Rom 12:2.

‘the former lusts in your ignorance’ This is a good indication that these believers were converted Gentiles.

‘desires’ are cravings or longings, in a negative or sinful sense. These desires characterized them in their unsaved days. Peter mentions these again in 2:11; 4:2,3.

[15-16] The positive: ‘be ye holy.’

Having been called by God they are to become holy; the standard of that holiness is God himself. Peter quotes a well-known phrase from Leviticus (11:44; 19:2; 20:7, 26; 21:8).

Why live a holy life?

– God the Father commands it (1:15-16)

– God the Son died to redeem us from sin (1:18-21)

– God the Holy Spirit makes it possible (1:22)

[17] “and’ This word tells us that here is another reason for living a holy life.

‘ye call on the Father…’ As children of God they were not to think that they would receive favourable treatment. Instead they were to fear (dread) his judgement because he is an impartial judge. The apostle Paul said something similar to the Roman believers in Rom 2:6-11.

‘pass the time’ conduct. They were to conduct themselves with fear. Peter may have had Psa 34:9-11 in mind.

‘your sojourning’ your temporary stay, i.e. residence in a country without taking out citizen rights. This brings to mind 1:1 and 2:11, also the familiar Old Testament references to sojourning (Gen 23:4; 1 Chron 29:15; Psa 105:12; also Acts 13:17). Peter here uses sojourning to depict the situation of Christians in the world.

[18-19] Peter reminds his audience (‘knowing as you do’) that they were redeemed by Christ. This is another reference to the experience of ancient Israel, and specifically to the Exodus, which was described as redemption (Ex 6:6).

What was redemption?

The same verb ‘redeem’ (to buy back, set free, deliver) is also used in Tit 2:14. The imagery of Christ’s death as a ransom goes back to Jesus himself (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45), ‘give his life a ransom for many.’ J.N.D. Kelly (1969, p74) maintains that: ‘In the Hellenistic world of the 1st cent. lutron, or ‘ransom’ was a technical term for the money paid over to buy a prisoner-of-war or slave his freedom…’ and proceeds to list the Old Testament (LXX) meanings as:

the redemption of a property held in mortgage (Lev 25:25-28.
the payment of a sum to God for the firstborn (Num 18:15).
the payment of a sum to God as a ransom by a man whose life was forfeit (Ex 21:30; 30:12).

It is used metaphorically of deliverance from Egypt, enemies, sin, death and exile in (Ex 6:6; 15:13; Dt 7:8; Psa 33:23; 106:2; 129:8; Isa 41:14; 43:1, 14; Hos 13:14)

Other New Testament words involving this metaphor are: antílutron (ransom)1 Tim 2:6; lútrōsis (redemption) Heb 9:12; apolútrōsis (redemption) Rom 3:24; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:15.

What were they redeemed from?

They were not ransomed from the power of Satan, no price was paid to him, but they were redeemed from their futile conduct (anastrophḗ) that had been handed down to them from their ancestors.

What were they redeemed by?

The price of their redemption was not paid by perishable goods like silver and gold which are material and therefore transitory and could not bring about spiritual deliverance. The ransom was paid by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or stain, and was therefore very costly.

The reference here is to the Jewish sacrificial system and the requirement that a sacrificial victim be a perfect specimen. In Christ’s case this is understood as sinlessness (Heb 9:14). ‘Blood’ means blood shed, i.e. a life laid down.

‘Lamb’ This would have taken their minds back to the Passover (Ex 12:5; 1 Cor 5:7) and also to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (Isa 53:7). Peter quotes from the Isaiah passage towards the end of chapter two. In contrast to 1 Cor 5:7 Peter does not call Christ the paschal lamb but only compares him to it.

[20-21] Peter now refers to the beginning and end of time. Christ was ‘foreknown’ i.e. predestined before the ‘foundation’ (a throwing or a casting down) of the world. This is a figure of speech (Jn 17:24; Eph 1:5), it is not literal. He was made manifest (for the verb see 1 Tim 3;16; Heb 9:26)) in ‘the end of the times’ (1 Cor 10:11). The ancestral way of life of these former pagans had been handed down over many generations but Jesus existed before the foundation of the world. Salvation history was planned by God in eternity and worked out in time.

‘for you’ This would have inspired the believers who were under pressure with confidence .

‘who through him (Christ) do believe in God’ It is through him that they have come to believe in God who raised him (Jesus) from the dead and gave him glory. As a result their faith and hope are fixed in God. The fact that God has raised and exalted Christ gives assurance that this resurrection life will one day be enjoyed by believers also.

hṓste ‘so that’ expresses consequence (‘are fixed on God’) although it may also express intention (Mt 27:1; Lk 20:20). In that latter case it would read ‘so that your faith and hope may be fixed on God.’ Either the result or the purpose is in view, it is not clear which applies.

Note:

1:18-19 The Price – ‘precious blood of Christ.’

1:20-21 The Proof – Historical (Christ was made manifest), Factual (he was resurrected)

1:20 The Plan – ‘foreordained before the foundation of the world.’

1:18, 21 The Purpose – ‘redeemed from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers’, ‘that your faith and hope might be in God.’

Imperative c) 1:22 ‘love one another with a pure heart fervently’

1:22-25 Having told his readers to focus on God’s grace and to be holy just as their heavenly Father is holy Peter now tells them that their new birth demands a transformation which enables them to love one another. This third imperative lets them know that status as God’s children is not just an individual matter but it brings one into relationship with other believers. The command is for Christians to love one another. This will be possible because

a) their lives have been set apart by obedience to the truth (v.22) and

b) because they have been reborn with a nature that is eternal (v.23).

‘love of the brethren’ (philadelphía) The basis of their love for one another is their relationship as ‘brothers.’ Since they have purified (made clean, consecrated) themselves through obedience to the truth this should result in sincere love of their fellow-Christians. This love is to be sincere (without hypocrisy) and fervent (intense).

[24-25] Citing Isa 40:6-8 Peter contrasts human life and efforts which perish with the power of God’s word that endures forever. New spiritual life from imperishable seed, the word of God, means that the Christian has eternal life and also that the ability to love one another has a supernatural origin. Human efforts fail but God always delivers on his promises. The permanence of the new life is contrasted with mortal life. Peter says that the announcement by Isaiah is the same word that has been proclaimed to them in the gospel. Isaiah’s message in the sixth century BCE was for a discouraged and oppressed people of God in exile. Peter is here addressing and encouraging God’s people who are also exiles (1:1), oppressed and possibly tempted to renounce their faith. He is reminding the Asian Christians of the power of God. The mighty Roman empire would fall but God’s word remains forever.

Imperative d) 2:2 ‘desire the sincere milk of the word’

‘therefore’ refers back to what has gone before, perhaps from v.13 but more likely from v.22. Having spoken of new birth the apostle now discusses how the new life is to be nourished. As those who have been born again the Christians are to reject things that are harmful and crave pure spiritual milk, as babies crave their mother’s milk, so that they might grow up.

[2:1] The harmful things listed are:

‘malice’ kakía wickedness

‘guile’ dólos deceit, deliberate dishonesty

‘hypocrisy’ hupókrisis pretence, like an actor on a stage

‘envy’ phthónos jealousy or spite

‘evil speaking’ katalalía defamation, slander

For other New Testament vice lists see Rom 1:29-31; 2 Cor 12:20; Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; 1 Tim 1:9-10.

‘ putting off’ This word was used of the removal of a garment in order to put another one on (Rom 13:12; Eph 4:22,25; Col 3:8; Jas 1:21). Not only are the Christians to put off these vices but like recently born babies they are to crave or long for good milk, by feeding on this they will grow up to spiritual maturity. The milk is said to be:

a) ádolos without deceit, guileless. When applied to foodstuffs it means pure or unadulterated. This word is the opposite of dólos (deceit) in verse 1.

b) logikós reasonable, spiritual. The only other occurrence is in Rom 12:1. The contrast here is between heavenly milk and literal milk.

‘thereby’ en autón – by it. This could also be translated ‘in it’ or ‘in him’, so Christ himself could be the Christian’s milk. This perhaps lead on to the thought of verse 3 which echoes Psa 34:8.

‘if’ seeing ‘you have tasted.

J.N.D Kelly (1969, p.86) comments: ‘For seeing the Greek has ei (lit. ‘if’), where the particle is not conditional but, as frequently in the NT (cf. i. 17; Mt. vi. 30; Lk. xii. 28; Rom. vi. 8; etc.), states as a supposition what is actually the case.’

Peter reminds the Asian Christians that they have already tasted that the Lord is good.

‘good’ means fit or profitable, of food it means delicious to the taste.

Peter seems to have had Psalm 34 in his mind as he wrote this epistle;

2:3 – Psa 34:8

2:4 – Psa 34:5 LXX ‘come to him’

3:10 – Psa 34:13

3:12 – Psa 34:15

New Testament helps for spiritual growth are:

proper food 1 Pet 2:2
proper exercise 1 Tim 4:7-8
proper rest Mk 6:31