To think is to judge.
Every time we perceive an object, every instant we contemplate an idea, our minds must process any and all new information into our existing classifications and ways of thinking. For instance, when I drive on a new road, I add it to the mental map of the area in my head.
Thinking about new information entails evaluating that new information.
There are several aspects of this evaluating process. For instance, to determine the weight we place in our conclusions, we must judge the relative significance of the information itself, the reliability of the source, the quantity of similar evidences, and a host of other factors
Even when we consciously choose to reserve judgment on information or ideas, we continue to make judgments. We judge that the data set we're drawing from lacks sufficient breadth or depth to justify an ultimate (or even penultimate) evaluation. We judge that we can postpone that ultimate evaluation without serious consequences. We must even judge the relative importance and probability of acquiring further information that might help us make that ultimate evaluation, to determine how assiduously we will work at it.
Judgments are the means of thought.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Apology: The Christian Trilemma
The Christian trilemma originates from a famous paragraph in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which reads as follows:
C.S. Lewis was drawing on the aut Deum aut malum ("either God or a bad man") formulation of earlier Christian evangelists, but his expanded version stuck. In its simplest form, the trichotomic choice he proposes runs as follows:
In its conditional form, the statement is uncomplicated and unavoidable. The only question is whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be God. Thus we arrive at a modified trichotomy:
Please note that this conditional does not state that the Bible accurately depicted the historical person Jesus ben-Joseph. The modified trilemma only states that the Jesus presented by the Bible did make claims to be divine.
There are internal textual evidences for this:
1) Jesus claimed to have the authority to forgive any sin (Luke 7:48) -- the sole province of God.
2) Jesus claimed to have the authority to judge the world (Matthew 25:31) -- again, that was God's thing.
3) Jesus responds "before Abraham was, I AM" to the Pharisees (John 8:58), identifying Himself by the Name of God. At this undeniable assertion of divinity, the Pharisees sought to stone him, and
4) Peter called Him the Christ, the Son of God, (Matthew 16:16) for which Jesus praised him, and stated that He would build His church on Peter, and by implication on Peter's confession.
There are also a number of external considerations:
5) If Christ didn't claim to be divine, how did His followers manage to become so convinced that He did? Every child in first century Judea could have recited by heart the Deuteronomical Shema ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one"). Is there a people in the history of the world who would have been less likely to confuse a human with the One True God? Yet we're supposed to believe that Jesus managed to inadvertently convince His disciples that He (a mere human) was somehow divine, despite their repeated obtuseness (recorded by Scripture) and the conservative assumptions of their Jewish traditions. At the very least, if Christ didn't claim to be God, then he must have been an almost dangerously incompetent teacher.
6) The Gospel of John begins with the plain assertion that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word was made flesh." That is John's gospel begins with the statement that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. It's rather absurd to argue that John intentionally omits any Christological claim to divinity, when John clearly thinks that Jesus was God and that He had made such claims.
7) The same principle holds for the other authors of the Gospels. Those who deny that Jesus ever made such claims to be divine, accept that the so-called mistake originated from His disciples. I don't know a single person who questions whether or not Christ's earliest disciples were convinced of His divinity, at least in their public testimony. Considering, then, that the other authors of the Gospels were convinced of His divinity, it is simply nonsensical to suppose that they would have carefully omitted any record of such claims.
Again, the point isn't that the Gospel accounts are accurate. I think they are, but that it's irrelevant to this modified trilemma. The point is that you have to dispute or discount the Biblical account of Jesus' life in order to deny that Christ claimed to be the divine Son of God.
The final evidential point is that those Biblical accounts are the only widely accepted documentary evidence of Jesus' life and teachings remaining extant. Without the Gospels, our knowledge of the "historical Jesus" would be pretty meager indeed, and indeed I would argue that it's impossible to construct a meaningful account of Jesus ben-Joseph without relying on portions of the Gospels.
But the only way to manage this without including Christ's divinity claims is by importing some a priori hermeneutic standards to reject the distastefully orthodox content while retaining the passages that comport with a more vaguely universalist theology. But this "Jesus Seminar" approach to Biblical hermeneutics is so susceptible to preconceived biases, that it really doesn't bear much resemblance to honest textual exegesis or good faith argumentation.
The Christian trilemma is not the only set of options available. But in my opinion it is the only set of options that takes the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life seriously.
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis was drawing on the aut Deum aut malum ("either God or a bad man") formulation of earlier Christian evangelists, but his expanded version stuck. In its simplest form, the trichotomic choice he proposes runs as follows:
If Jesus claimed to be God, then:
1) He was God, and He knew it (Lord)
2) He was God, and He didn't know it (a logical impossibility)
3) He wasn't God, and He knew it (Liar)
4) He wasn't God, and He didn't know it (Lunatic)
In its conditional form, the statement is uncomplicated and unavoidable. The only question is whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be God. Thus we arrive at a modified trichotomy:
If "Jesus" means the historical person as depicted in the Bible, then Jesus claimed to be God.
If Jesus claimed to be God, etc. (see above).
Please note that this conditional does not state that the Bible accurately depicted the historical person Jesus ben-Joseph. The modified trilemma only states that the Jesus presented by the Bible did make claims to be divine.
There are internal textual evidences for this:
1) Jesus claimed to have the authority to forgive any sin (Luke 7:48) -- the sole province of God.
2) Jesus claimed to have the authority to judge the world (Matthew 25:31) -- again, that was God's thing.
3) Jesus responds "before Abraham was, I AM" to the Pharisees (John 8:58), identifying Himself by the Name of God. At this undeniable assertion of divinity, the Pharisees sought to stone him, and
4) Peter called Him the Christ, the Son of God, (Matthew 16:16) for which Jesus praised him, and stated that He would build His church on Peter, and by implication on Peter's confession.
There are also a number of external considerations:
5) If Christ didn't claim to be divine, how did His followers manage to become so convinced that He did? Every child in first century Judea could have recited by heart the Deuteronomical Shema ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one"). Is there a people in the history of the world who would have been less likely to confuse a human with the One True God? Yet we're supposed to believe that Jesus managed to inadvertently convince His disciples that He (a mere human) was somehow divine, despite their repeated obtuseness (recorded by Scripture) and the conservative assumptions of their Jewish traditions. At the very least, if Christ didn't claim to be God, then he must have been an almost dangerously incompetent teacher.
6) The Gospel of John begins with the plain assertion that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word was made flesh." That is John's gospel begins with the statement that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. It's rather absurd to argue that John intentionally omits any Christological claim to divinity, when John clearly thinks that Jesus was God and that He had made such claims.
7) The same principle holds for the other authors of the Gospels. Those who deny that Jesus ever made such claims to be divine, accept that the so-called mistake originated from His disciples. I don't know a single person who questions whether or not Christ's earliest disciples were convinced of His divinity, at least in their public testimony. Considering, then, that the other authors of the Gospels were convinced of His divinity, it is simply nonsensical to suppose that they would have carefully omitted any record of such claims.
Again, the point isn't that the Gospel accounts are accurate. I think they are, but that it's irrelevant to this modified trilemma. The point is that you have to dispute or discount the Biblical account of Jesus' life in order to deny that Christ claimed to be the divine Son of God.
The final evidential point is that those Biblical accounts are the only widely accepted documentary evidence of Jesus' life and teachings remaining extant. Without the Gospels, our knowledge of the "historical Jesus" would be pretty meager indeed, and indeed I would argue that it's impossible to construct a meaningful account of Jesus ben-Joseph without relying on portions of the Gospels.
But the only way to manage this without including Christ's divinity claims is by importing some a priori hermeneutic standards to reject the distastefully orthodox content while retaining the passages that comport with a more vaguely universalist theology. But this "Jesus Seminar" approach to Biblical hermeneutics is so susceptible to preconceived biases, that it really doesn't bear much resemblance to honest textual exegesis or good faith argumentation.
The Christian trilemma is not the only set of options available. But in my opinion it is the only set of options that takes the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life seriously.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Reflection on Authority: #3
The strongest arguments rely on a multiplicity of shared authorities. St. Thomas Aquinas was the master of this. In his early work, Summa Contra Gentiles, he outlined every argument for Christian faith and doctrine using only those authorities which would be shared by a non-Christian audience -- such as natural science and the Greek philosophers. In his later and more famous Summa Theologica, he expanded his earlier writing and developed a fully systematic theology based on authorities common to a Christian audience -- including Scripture and church tradition.
Authorities allow us to make and judge arguments. However, it should be noted that in order to accept an authority, we must evaluate it first, to determine whether it is reliable, or how to rank the value and reliability of multiple authorities. In other words, the process of accepting an authority is itself a judgment, which must be reached on the conclusion of a separate argumentative process, and must therefore rely on authorities itself.
This illustrates one of the more difficult topics in epistemology: the regressive nature of knowledge. Scientists often like to speak of the progressivity of knowledge: one discovery builds on the foundation of another. Yet even in that we see its corollary: if ideas build on each other, then an idea must have come before it. The reasons we give for one argument, rely on the outcome of another previous argument, and so on.
Epistemology is not self-sufficient. In order to conclude anything, we must first agree on something.
If our common foundation were an authority (an outside source of knowledge), then we would fall into a flat contradiction, for our acceptance of that authority would rely on a prior common understanding that such an authority can be trusted. Only personal experience qualifies as evidence not dependent on others, but not even that will suffice: for that must rely implicitly on the reliability of our own experience. Moreover, personal experiences cannot be held in common, so the point is moot from the start.
The very nature of authority points us to an authority outside itself.
Authorities allow us to make and judge arguments. However, it should be noted that in order to accept an authority, we must evaluate it first, to determine whether it is reliable, or how to rank the value and reliability of multiple authorities. In other words, the process of accepting an authority is itself a judgment, which must be reached on the conclusion of a separate argumentative process, and must therefore rely on authorities itself.
This illustrates one of the more difficult topics in epistemology: the regressive nature of knowledge. Scientists often like to speak of the progressivity of knowledge: one discovery builds on the foundation of another. Yet even in that we see its corollary: if ideas build on each other, then an idea must have come before it. The reasons we give for one argument, rely on the outcome of another previous argument, and so on.
Epistemology is not self-sufficient. In order to conclude anything, we must first agree on something.
If our common foundation were an authority (an outside source of knowledge), then we would fall into a flat contradiction, for our acceptance of that authority would rely on a prior common understanding that such an authority can be trusted. Only personal experience qualifies as evidence not dependent on others, but not even that will suffice: for that must rely implicitly on the reliability of our own experience. Moreover, personal experiences cannot be held in common, so the point is moot from the start.
The very nature of authority points us to an authority outside itself.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Reflection on Authority: #2
As the previous definition of argumentation should make clear, it is impossible to make an argument without first holding some premise in common. Since most premises are supplied by authority, arguments almost invariably rely on authorities held in common.
Appeals to authority are valid insofar as we consider that authority to be a trustworthy or reliable source of evidence within a particular sphere. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a nearly unimpeachable authority when it comes to his specialized field. In other fields, I do not think him as reliable an authority, as in questions of extraterrestrial life, alien invasion, and the existence of God.
The "appeal to authority fallacy" revolves around the a claim that a particular authority is infallible or beyond criticism in a certain field. Such claims are generally reckless, and unworthy of consideration, except where the claim of authority intrinsically entails such infallibility.
For instance, Scripture claims to convey the words of Christ and of God, transcribed by human agents who were themselves acting under divine inspiration. If these words were anything less than perfectly True, Good, and Beautiful, Scripture would lose its value as an authority. Therefore, the Scriptural claim to infallibility is intrinsic to itself and must be treated separately.
It may be noted that the question of Scriptural infallibility faces the same trichotomy that C.S. Lewis ascribed to the divinity of Christ, the famous "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument. Either Scripture is divinely inspired and thereby infallible, or it's a deliberate lie, or it is a simple exercise in authorial delusions of grandeur.
Appeals to authority are valid insofar as we consider that authority to be a trustworthy or reliable source of evidence within a particular sphere. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a nearly unimpeachable authority when it comes to his specialized field. In other fields, I do not think him as reliable an authority, as in questions of extraterrestrial life, alien invasion, and the existence of God.
The "appeal to authority fallacy" revolves around the a claim that a particular authority is infallible or beyond criticism in a certain field. Such claims are generally reckless, and unworthy of consideration, except where the claim of authority intrinsically entails such infallibility.
For instance, Scripture claims to convey the words of Christ and of God, transcribed by human agents who were themselves acting under divine inspiration. If these words were anything less than perfectly True, Good, and Beautiful, Scripture would lose its value as an authority. Therefore, the Scriptural claim to infallibility is intrinsic to itself and must be treated separately.
It may be noted that the question of Scriptural infallibility faces the same trichotomy that C.S. Lewis ascribed to the divinity of Christ, the famous "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument. Either Scripture is divinely inspired and thereby infallible, or it's a deliberate lie, or it is a simple exercise in authorial delusions of grandeur.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Reflection on Authority: #1
Argumentation is the process of working from shared knowledge or common assumptions, to conclusions that are not shared or held in common.
In argumentation, virtually all of the premises on which we rely are based on authority -- that is, they are supplied by others, not by ourselves. We simply lack the expertise or the experience to know everything of which we speak. I doubt whether we are the ultimate source of even a fraction of our truth claims: only claims of personal experience can suffice.
Even if I were to carry out an entirely independent experiment, I still rely on the education I received from experts in the field to corroborate that I used the proper technique to gather data and reach conclusions; I must trust that others have or will have independently reached the same conclusions and verified my findings; and I must interpret my data and my conclusions in light of the knowledge I share and have received from other scientists.
Human knowledge cannot be objective, for we are fallible humans. Nor, contra Michael Polanyi, is human knowledge an essentially personal activity, though there is an intrinsic human element to all of our intellectual pursuits.
Human knowledge is a fundamentally social endeavor, for all of our efforts to discern truth will rely considerably, if not entirely, on the trust we place in others.
The question of authority -- the extent to which we are comfortable relying on things or persons outside ourselves-- is central to almost every truth claim to which we turn our minds.
In argumentation, virtually all of the premises on which we rely are based on authority -- that is, they are supplied by others, not by ourselves. We simply lack the expertise or the experience to know everything of which we speak. I doubt whether we are the ultimate source of even a fraction of our truth claims: only claims of personal experience can suffice.
Even if I were to carry out an entirely independent experiment, I still rely on the education I received from experts in the field to corroborate that I used the proper technique to gather data and reach conclusions; I must trust that others have or will have independently reached the same conclusions and verified my findings; and I must interpret my data and my conclusions in light of the knowledge I share and have received from other scientists.
Human knowledge cannot be objective, for we are fallible humans. Nor, contra Michael Polanyi, is human knowledge an essentially personal activity, though there is an intrinsic human element to all of our intellectual pursuits.
Human knowledge is a fundamentally social endeavor, for all of our efforts to discern truth will rely considerably, if not entirely, on the trust we place in others.
The question of authority -- the extent to which we are comfortable relying on things or persons outside ourselves-- is central to almost every truth claim to which we turn our minds.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Contemplations in Theology: #14
One of my favorite verses is 1 Corinthians 6:3 - "Do you not know that we will judge angels?" It is a deliciously vague verse, dropping the merest hint of our future as restored humanity.
Angels reside continually in the unadulterated Presence of God. It shows. I can't remember a single instance in Scripture where a guy meets an angel and doesn't fall to his knees in incapacitating fear. We're talking about Seriously Tall People with flaming swords, heads of lions, massive wings, circles within circles... you know, the works.
And yet 1 Corinthians 6:3 tells us that the Christian shall not only be able to withstand such a sight, but shall indeed be judges presiding over such creature.
God has something up His sleeves. Angel means 'messenger' or (more broadly) 'agent,' so the angels were made to carry out and communicate His will. I will not attempt a more detailed examination of what angels are, for I will readily admit I could care less. The point is that God made humanity in HIS OWN IMAGE. We are more than agents, more than messengers, more than any heavenly creature. For God implanted in our souls the germ of Himself. Our souls yearn for Him for this reason. We desire the good, the true and the beautiful because those noble qualities reflect Him. We are defined as human precisely in the degree to which we reflect God.
And then we fell.
Salvation is like a Texas Two-Step. First we're saved... then we're really saved. Justification is necessary to get us through the door, past the threshold, to the hearth of Heaven and the arms of God. But what will we do once we're there?
Most Christians, if they're honest with themselves, will admit that an eternity of harps and choral singing sounds -- frankly -- as boring as Hell. Granted, we're supposed to be happy about the prospect because God will be there, and admittedly, that would make up for quite a bit. But why would we ever look forward to losing everything that we enjoy in this life, those things that define us as human?
Such a heaven is a heresy. If our humanity is defined by the image of God, then God could not have intended to remove that image from us when we are saved. If anything, our humanity shall be amplified, purified, pushed to its outer bounds. C.S. Lewis once wrote that humans are like children who prefer mud pies over chocolate, a sandbox over a day at the beach. Our desires aren't excessive; they're too small. We think too small. The harps and the choral singing isn't going to be our full-time occupation in the heavenly barracks. The music is supposed to symbolize the ecstasy we shall experience in the Presence of God, an ecstasy we sometimes find in music. The words of praise speak to the joy of our hearts that will be constantly expressing gratitude towards God.
There is no temple in the New Jerusalem. The city is the temple. Our entire lives will glorify God, and God will glorify our entire lives.
There's the word: glorify. Justification is nice for those first baby-steps, but glorification is the meat of our eternal future. Christ was the firstborn, the Son of Man just as surely as the Son of God. And the saints are the children of God, who died with Christ in His death and are raised up with Him through His resurrection. We owe everything to God, and will owe Him all the more when He lavishes His love upon us.
Please, enough with the heaven of school uniforms, of starchy collars and organ music (unless you actually like organ music, in which case let your imagination run wild). Heaven is going to be beyond your wildest dreams, almost as far beyond description as God is, mostly because it's going to be God's party, put on for all eternity for our enjoyment.
Since before time began, God prepared a feast for you. Now He's waiting for you to arrive, His guest of honor. Traffic's a beast, but the party is worth it.
Angels reside continually in the unadulterated Presence of God. It shows. I can't remember a single instance in Scripture where a guy meets an angel and doesn't fall to his knees in incapacitating fear. We're talking about Seriously Tall People with flaming swords, heads of lions, massive wings, circles within circles... you know, the works.
And yet 1 Corinthians 6:3 tells us that the Christian shall not only be able to withstand such a sight, but shall indeed be judges presiding over such creature.
God has something up His sleeves. Angel means 'messenger' or (more broadly) 'agent,' so the angels were made to carry out and communicate His will. I will not attempt a more detailed examination of what angels are, for I will readily admit I could care less. The point is that God made humanity in HIS OWN IMAGE. We are more than agents, more than messengers, more than any heavenly creature. For God implanted in our souls the germ of Himself. Our souls yearn for Him for this reason. We desire the good, the true and the beautiful because those noble qualities reflect Him. We are defined as human precisely in the degree to which we reflect God.
And then we fell.
Salvation is like a Texas Two-Step. First we're saved... then we're really saved. Justification is necessary to get us through the door, past the threshold, to the hearth of Heaven and the arms of God. But what will we do once we're there?
Most Christians, if they're honest with themselves, will admit that an eternity of harps and choral singing sounds -- frankly -- as boring as Hell. Granted, we're supposed to be happy about the prospect because God will be there, and admittedly, that would make up for quite a bit. But why would we ever look forward to losing everything that we enjoy in this life, those things that define us as human?
Such a heaven is a heresy. If our humanity is defined by the image of God, then God could not have intended to remove that image from us when we are saved. If anything, our humanity shall be amplified, purified, pushed to its outer bounds. C.S. Lewis once wrote that humans are like children who prefer mud pies over chocolate, a sandbox over a day at the beach. Our desires aren't excessive; they're too small. We think too small. The harps and the choral singing isn't going to be our full-time occupation in the heavenly barracks. The music is supposed to symbolize the ecstasy we shall experience in the Presence of God, an ecstasy we sometimes find in music. The words of praise speak to the joy of our hearts that will be constantly expressing gratitude towards God.
There is no temple in the New Jerusalem. The city is the temple. Our entire lives will glorify God, and God will glorify our entire lives.
There's the word: glorify. Justification is nice for those first baby-steps, but glorification is the meat of our eternal future. Christ was the firstborn, the Son of Man just as surely as the Son of God. And the saints are the children of God, who died with Christ in His death and are raised up with Him through His resurrection. We owe everything to God, and will owe Him all the more when He lavishes His love upon us.
Please, enough with the heaven of school uniforms, of starchy collars and organ music (unless you actually like organ music, in which case let your imagination run wild). Heaven is going to be beyond your wildest dreams, almost as far beyond description as God is, mostly because it's going to be God's party, put on for all eternity for our enjoyment.
Since before time began, God prepared a feast for you. Now He's waiting for you to arrive, His guest of honor. Traffic's a beast, but the party is worth it.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Commentary on Scripture: 1 Peter
To those who reside as aliens, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
1 Peter 1:1-2 ~~ This is a strong statement of the Trinitarian nature of the Christian faith. It should also be noted that predestination is strongly correlated here to the work of the Trinity.
1 Peter 1:3-4 ~~ “A living hope through the resurrection… to obtain an inheritance… reserved in heaven”: the phraseology indicates a distinction between resurrection (salvation proper) and inheritance (the exaltation mentioned in 5:6).
1 Peter 1:8 ~~ This is a wonderful description of a Christian’s spirit: “joy inexpressible” and “full of glory”
1 Peter 1:9 ~~ “The outcome of your faith” related to qualities listed in 1:8
1 Peter 1:10-12 ~~ The prophets “made careful searches and inquiries” (strong use of reason) and passed along their knowledge (through tradition).
1 Peter 1:12 ~~ The mysteries revealed by the prophets and through the early church are “things into which angels long to look.” Similar to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 6:3, to wit: "Do you not know that you shall judge angels?" Our status and future exaltation so far exceeds the current glory of angels that comparison becomes meaningless.
1 Peter 1:13 ~~ “Prepare minds for action, keep sober, fix hopes completely on the grace to be brought to you by the revelation of Jesus” – firm correlation between grace/salvation and revelation.
1 Peter 1:14 ~~ As “obedient children” we are called to desire God’s will and avoid the “formers lusts [which were yours] in your ignorance.” But if we sin out of ignorance of what God’s will is, how is this command to be filled? Perhaps, as in Romans 2:12, we are judged by our deeds relative to our moral knowledge.
1 Peter 1:18 ~~ We are not redeemed from the “futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.” This is interesting, as Peter (traditional head of the Catholic church) seems to disparage or deny tradition. It may be that this verse is also the origin for Christian supersessionism: the doctrine that the relationship of Christ to the Church has supplanted the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant between God and Israel.
1 Peter 1:20 ~~ “For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world.” The doctrine of the Trinity arises here again in conjunction with predestination: God possesses foreknowledge of Christ?
1 Peter 1:22 ~~ Obedience to truth purifies and prepares the soul to love others, and moves it to action.
1 Peter 2:1 ~~ We are called to cast away sins of the heart and the word. Each sin Peter lists corresponds to relational sins, in how we perceive or seek to be perceived in comparison with others. Malice is the most straightforward, the desire to do harm to others. Deceit and hypocrisy are the twin desires to appear differently to oneself and to others, to appear better than reality. Envy is the instinct to despise others for their relative excellence. Slander is the desire to cause others to appear worse than reality.
1 Peter 2:8 ~~ This verse seems to support a Calvinist view of damnation (cf. Exodus 7:4).
1 Peter 2:11 ~~ Our fleshly lusts wage war against the soul.
1 Peter 2:12 ~~ We are called appear excellent to the Gentiles to lead them to God. This theme is often repeated in Galatians and in the other Pauline letters.
1 Peter 2:12-13 ~~ This verse provides a hermeneutic for Peter’s teachings on authority. Despise slanders, we are always called to act with nobility, in a manner worthy of praise.
1 Peter 2:13 ~~ This verse attracts the most attention in the following section, but it functions primarily as an introduction and summary. It clarifies the role and relative nature of sovereignty and authority. It is important to note that “for the Lord’s sake” (for the ultimate purpose of honoring the Lord) is not the same as the frequent mistranslation “as unto the Lord” (as though one were honoring the Lord directly).
1 Peter 2:14 ~~ It is the nature and proper function of government to punish evildoers (this is standard to classical liberal political theory) and to praise those who do right. This latter function is nowhere near so widely recognized.
1 Peter 2:15-16 ~~ We are to silence our critics, not by yielding as though under compulsion or to our rightful sovereignty (that authority is God’s), but by submitting freely, in order to honor God. In short, we are called to freely do our duty.
1 Peter 2:16 ~~ We are to use our freedom in Christ to obey the commands He gives us (cf. Galatians 5).
1 Peter 2:17 ~~ This verse presents a pair of contrasts. We are to honor everyone, while loving our brothers (those in the Christian faith). Likewise, we are to honor authorities on earth, but we are called to fear God.
1 Peter 2:18-19 ~~ To suffer for good deeds with patience is the pinnacle of a virtue.
1 Peter 2:20 ~~ Patience (especially patience through suffering) is designed to amplify good deeds, but it is devalued when the suffering occurs after evil preceding actions.
1 Peter 3:1 ~~ The command to wives follows the passage regarding submission to authority, and Christ’s example of humility. The command is given for the same reason as those that came before: to save the souls of those who observe your good deeds.
1 Peter 3:3-4 ~~ This verse serves as a caution to the preceding command, regarding the observation of others. We are to let them focus on our character, not on the external distractions or appearance. We are to emphasize “the hidden person.”
1 Peter 3:5-6 ~~ Peter cites the example of Sarah and those who make themselves her children, the daughters of God. The next verse clarifies that a daughter of Sarah is one who does what is right without fear. The Christian command of submission is here identified with courage!
1 Peter 3:7 ~~ The command to husbands is primarily a command to be considerate of their wives, especially of any weaknesses. The phrasing is interesting: husbands are to honor her so that their own prayers are not hindered. One could equally say that a husband honors his wife, or else his prayers (and thus his relationship with God) would be impeded.
1 Peter 3:8-9 ~~ The virtues listed here are relational virtues, just as the evils listed in 2:1 are relational evils. To be harmonious is to act as a body, to act for one another, with one purpose. To be sympathetic is to feel as a body and to feel for one another. To be brotherly is to function as a family, to defend and honor one another. To be kindhearted is to forgive and accept one another’s humanity, to be patient and gentle with each other. To be humble in spirit is to accept one’s place within the family. Finally, to return blessing for evil is to love thy neighbor and to turn the other cheek.
1 Peter 3:10-12 ~~ Peter quotes Psalms 34: goodness leads to a good life with the love of God and love of one’s neighbor.
1 Peter 3:13 ~~ “Who is the one who will harm you, if you prove zealous for what is good?”
1 Peter 3:15 ~~ “Always be ready to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” In this way, we overcome suffering and sanctify Christ in our hearts.
1 Peter 3:15-16 ~~ If suffering is the will of God, then we are to suffer for a good reason.
1 Peter 3:19-20 ~~ By one interpretation, this verse states that Christ, in the three days following his crucifixion, proclaimed the Gospel to the dead from the antediluvian generations.
1 Peter 3:20 ~~ Here is a unique perspective on the Flood narrative: God in fact exhibited patience, by waiting for Noah to finish the ark before destroying the rest of humanity.
1 Peter 3:21 ~~ Peter compares baptism to the Flood, though not with the usual analogy. It is not the washing away of filth and flesh, but the preserving of the righteousness, that is at the heart of the analogy. It is not the destruction of humanity, but the preservation of Noah and his sons, that baptism reflects: it does not save us nor cleanse us, but appeals to God to preserve our obedience and a clean conscience.
1 Peter 4:3-5 ~~ Peter pointedly states that his audience has already had plenty of time to enjoy the dissolutions of the flesh, the “desires of the Gentiles,” yet they found it lacking and sought God. Old colleagues in such sins may malign these new Christians, but their conducts towards the believers only confirms their conversion to a new life.
1 Peter 4:6 ~~ This verse, like 3:19-20, states that the Gospel was preached to the dead. But see Hebrews 9:27 for a contrasting doctrine, that would seem to contradict this.
1 Peter 4:7 ~~ Eschatology inspires preparedness, in sound judgment and a sober spirit for prayer.
1 Peter 4:8 ~ We are called to love one another, as love covers a multitude of sins. I wonder, whose sins? One’s own sins (our love demonstrates our faith which saves us)? Or the sins of others? If the latter, is this only for Christians, or even for the non-believers towards whom we show love? This fits into a general hierarchical model of salvation, such as that outlined in Ephesians 5. I’ve often wondered about the phenomenon of domesticated animals, and thought that perhaps, as Christ is able to redeem humanity, man is able by resembling Christ to redeem those aspects of nature that surround him. Perhaps this extends to our fellow man: by more closely resembling Christ, we are able to extend His grace to others. Ephesians 5 makes the same point: a husband may extend grace to his wife and family by resembling Christ in his self-sacrifice.
1 Peter 4:9 ~~ Be hospitable to one another – this command seems to go beyond “mere” love, and might perhaps approach pure caritas (the highest form of Godly love).
1 Peter 4:10 ~~ There are two points in this verse: everyone has a special gift from God, and each one is to exercise or employ it as a steward of God’s grace.
1 Peter 4:11 ~~ Whatever we speak or do, we are to act as though the words or deeds carried some measure of God within them: we must speak as though speaking the utterances of God, and serve by the strength God provides.
1 Peter 4:12-14 ~~ We are to rejoice in suffering, that we participate in it with Christ.
1 Peter 4:15-16 ~~ Peter repeats the admonishment to suffer (that’s a given in Peter’s theology), specifically to suffer in the service of the Good.
1 Peter 5:1-4 ~~ Peter speaks to the elders: take your duties voluntarily, not for honor or out of a sense of obligation, but with joy and eagerness, nor with pride in your station but with the humility to lead by example.
1 Peter 5:4 ~~ There is a special glory to those with greater responsibilities (cf. James 3:1).
1 Peter 5:5-11 ~~ Peter speaks to the young men: be humble, and subject to the elders, “that He may exalt you at the proper time” (!) We are to cast our anxieties (including our desire for exaltation) upon Him, and entrust ourselves to His care. This requires the patience to suffer for a little while before this exaltation, in which God shall “perfect, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.”
1 Peter 5:8-9 ~~ Be alert and resist evil (we are strengthened in our will to stand firm by God). We find encouragement in the ubiquity of our struggles – we are not alone, others endure the same struggles.
1 Peter 5:12 ~~ Here is an interesting parenthetical remark: “Silvanus, our faithful brother (as I consider)....” It seems similar to the phrase “God willing” (which arose from James 4:15), but this saying evidently never caught on. It certainly attests to our ignorance, and our willingness to recognize it in light of God’s omniscience.
Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.
1 Peter 1:1-2 ~~ This is a strong statement of the Trinitarian nature of the Christian faith. It should also be noted that predestination is strongly correlated here to the work of the Trinity.
1 Peter 1:3-4 ~~ “A living hope through the resurrection… to obtain an inheritance… reserved in heaven”: the phraseology indicates a distinction between resurrection (salvation proper) and inheritance (the exaltation mentioned in 5:6).
1 Peter 1:8 ~~ This is a wonderful description of a Christian’s spirit: “joy inexpressible” and “full of glory”
1 Peter 1:9 ~~ “The outcome of your faith” related to qualities listed in 1:8
1 Peter 1:10-12 ~~ The prophets “made careful searches and inquiries” (strong use of reason) and passed along their knowledge (through tradition).
1 Peter 1:12 ~~ The mysteries revealed by the prophets and through the early church are “things into which angels long to look.” Similar to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 6:3, to wit: "Do you not know that you shall judge angels?" Our status and future exaltation so far exceeds the current glory of angels that comparison becomes meaningless.
1 Peter 1:13 ~~ “Prepare minds for action, keep sober, fix hopes completely on the grace to be brought to you by the revelation of Jesus” – firm correlation between grace/salvation and revelation.
1 Peter 1:14 ~~ As “obedient children” we are called to desire God’s will and avoid the “formers lusts [which were yours] in your ignorance.” But if we sin out of ignorance of what God’s will is, how is this command to be filled? Perhaps, as in Romans 2:12, we are judged by our deeds relative to our moral knowledge.
1 Peter 1:18 ~~ We are not redeemed from the “futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.” This is interesting, as Peter (traditional head of the Catholic church) seems to disparage or deny tradition. It may be that this verse is also the origin for Christian supersessionism: the doctrine that the relationship of Christ to the Church has supplanted the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant between God and Israel.
1 Peter 1:20 ~~ “For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world.” The doctrine of the Trinity arises here again in conjunction with predestination: God possesses foreknowledge of Christ?
1 Peter 1:22 ~~ Obedience to truth purifies and prepares the soul to love others, and moves it to action.
1 Peter 2:1 ~~ We are called to cast away sins of the heart and the word. Each sin Peter lists corresponds to relational sins, in how we perceive or seek to be perceived in comparison with others. Malice is the most straightforward, the desire to do harm to others. Deceit and hypocrisy are the twin desires to appear differently to oneself and to others, to appear better than reality. Envy is the instinct to despise others for their relative excellence. Slander is the desire to cause others to appear worse than reality.
1 Peter 2:8 ~~ This verse seems to support a Calvinist view of damnation (cf. Exodus 7:4).
1 Peter 2:11 ~~ Our fleshly lusts wage war against the soul.
1 Peter 2:12 ~~ We are called appear excellent to the Gentiles to lead them to God. This theme is often repeated in Galatians and in the other Pauline letters.
1 Peter 2:12-13 ~~ This verse provides a hermeneutic for Peter’s teachings on authority. Despise slanders, we are always called to act with nobility, in a manner worthy of praise.
1 Peter 2:13 ~~ This verse attracts the most attention in the following section, but it functions primarily as an introduction and summary. It clarifies the role and relative nature of sovereignty and authority. It is important to note that “for the Lord’s sake” (for the ultimate purpose of honoring the Lord) is not the same as the frequent mistranslation “as unto the Lord” (as though one were honoring the Lord directly).
1 Peter 2:14 ~~ It is the nature and proper function of government to punish evildoers (this is standard to classical liberal political theory) and to praise those who do right. This latter function is nowhere near so widely recognized.
1 Peter 2:15-16 ~~ We are to silence our critics, not by yielding as though under compulsion or to our rightful sovereignty (that authority is God’s), but by submitting freely, in order to honor God. In short, we are called to freely do our duty.
1 Peter 2:16 ~~ We are to use our freedom in Christ to obey the commands He gives us (cf. Galatians 5).
1 Peter 2:17 ~~ This verse presents a pair of contrasts. We are to honor everyone, while loving our brothers (those in the Christian faith). Likewise, we are to honor authorities on earth, but we are called to fear God.
1 Peter 2:18-19 ~~ To suffer for good deeds with patience is the pinnacle of a virtue.
1 Peter 2:20 ~~ Patience (especially patience through suffering) is designed to amplify good deeds, but it is devalued when the suffering occurs after evil preceding actions.
1 Peter 3:1 ~~ The command to wives follows the passage regarding submission to authority, and Christ’s example of humility. The command is given for the same reason as those that came before: to save the souls of those who observe your good deeds.
1 Peter 3:3-4 ~~ This verse serves as a caution to the preceding command, regarding the observation of others. We are to let them focus on our character, not on the external distractions or appearance. We are to emphasize “the hidden person.”
1 Peter 3:5-6 ~~ Peter cites the example of Sarah and those who make themselves her children, the daughters of God. The next verse clarifies that a daughter of Sarah is one who does what is right without fear. The Christian command of submission is here identified with courage!
1 Peter 3:7 ~~ The command to husbands is primarily a command to be considerate of their wives, especially of any weaknesses. The phrasing is interesting: husbands are to honor her so that their own prayers are not hindered. One could equally say that a husband honors his wife, or else his prayers (and thus his relationship with God) would be impeded.
1 Peter 3:8-9 ~~ The virtues listed here are relational virtues, just as the evils listed in 2:1 are relational evils. To be harmonious is to act as a body, to act for one another, with one purpose. To be sympathetic is to feel as a body and to feel for one another. To be brotherly is to function as a family, to defend and honor one another. To be kindhearted is to forgive and accept one another’s humanity, to be patient and gentle with each other. To be humble in spirit is to accept one’s place within the family. Finally, to return blessing for evil is to love thy neighbor and to turn the other cheek.
1 Peter 3:10-12 ~~ Peter quotes Psalms 34: goodness leads to a good life with the love of God and love of one’s neighbor.
1 Peter 3:13 ~~ “Who is the one who will harm you, if you prove zealous for what is good?”
1 Peter 3:15 ~~ “Always be ready to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” In this way, we overcome suffering and sanctify Christ in our hearts.
1 Peter 3:15-16 ~~ If suffering is the will of God, then we are to suffer for a good reason.
1 Peter 3:19-20 ~~ By one interpretation, this verse states that Christ, in the three days following his crucifixion, proclaimed the Gospel to the dead from the antediluvian generations.
1 Peter 3:20 ~~ Here is a unique perspective on the Flood narrative: God in fact exhibited patience, by waiting for Noah to finish the ark before destroying the rest of humanity.
1 Peter 3:21 ~~ Peter compares baptism to the Flood, though not with the usual analogy. It is not the washing away of filth and flesh, but the preserving of the righteousness, that is at the heart of the analogy. It is not the destruction of humanity, but the preservation of Noah and his sons, that baptism reflects: it does not save us nor cleanse us, but appeals to God to preserve our obedience and a clean conscience.
1 Peter 4:3-5 ~~ Peter pointedly states that his audience has already had plenty of time to enjoy the dissolutions of the flesh, the “desires of the Gentiles,” yet they found it lacking and sought God. Old colleagues in such sins may malign these new Christians, but their conducts towards the believers only confirms their conversion to a new life.
1 Peter 4:6 ~~ This verse, like 3:19-20, states that the Gospel was preached to the dead. But see Hebrews 9:27 for a contrasting doctrine, that would seem to contradict this.
1 Peter 4:7 ~~ Eschatology inspires preparedness, in sound judgment and a sober spirit for prayer.
1 Peter 4:8 ~ We are called to love one another, as love covers a multitude of sins. I wonder, whose sins? One’s own sins (our love demonstrates our faith which saves us)? Or the sins of others? If the latter, is this only for Christians, or even for the non-believers towards whom we show love? This fits into a general hierarchical model of salvation, such as that outlined in Ephesians 5. I’ve often wondered about the phenomenon of domesticated animals, and thought that perhaps, as Christ is able to redeem humanity, man is able by resembling Christ to redeem those aspects of nature that surround him. Perhaps this extends to our fellow man: by more closely resembling Christ, we are able to extend His grace to others. Ephesians 5 makes the same point: a husband may extend grace to his wife and family by resembling Christ in his self-sacrifice.
1 Peter 4:9 ~~ Be hospitable to one another – this command seems to go beyond “mere” love, and might perhaps approach pure caritas (the highest form of Godly love).
1 Peter 4:10 ~~ There are two points in this verse: everyone has a special gift from God, and each one is to exercise or employ it as a steward of God’s grace.
1 Peter 4:11 ~~ Whatever we speak or do, we are to act as though the words or deeds carried some measure of God within them: we must speak as though speaking the utterances of God, and serve by the strength God provides.
1 Peter 4:12-14 ~~ We are to rejoice in suffering, that we participate in it with Christ.
1 Peter 4:15-16 ~~ Peter repeats the admonishment to suffer (that’s a given in Peter’s theology), specifically to suffer in the service of the Good.
1 Peter 5:1-4 ~~ Peter speaks to the elders: take your duties voluntarily, not for honor or out of a sense of obligation, but with joy and eagerness, nor with pride in your station but with the humility to lead by example.
1 Peter 5:4 ~~ There is a special glory to those with greater responsibilities (cf. James 3:1).
1 Peter 5:5-11 ~~ Peter speaks to the young men: be humble, and subject to the elders, “that He may exalt you at the proper time” (!) We are to cast our anxieties (including our desire for exaltation) upon Him, and entrust ourselves to His care. This requires the patience to suffer for a little while before this exaltation, in which God shall “perfect, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.”
1 Peter 5:8-9 ~~ Be alert and resist evil (we are strengthened in our will to stand firm by God). We find encouragement in the ubiquity of our struggles – we are not alone, others endure the same struggles.
1 Peter 5:12 ~~ Here is an interesting parenthetical remark: “Silvanus, our faithful brother (as I consider)....” It seems similar to the phrase “God willing” (which arose from James 4:15), but this saying evidently never caught on. It certainly attests to our ignorance, and our willingness to recognize it in light of God’s omniscience.
Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)