The Greek alphabet song: now with MORE COWBELL!

Pretty funny. It also uses the tune I've used to teach the alphabet:

(I would quibble about American pronunciation of the a's [as in bad rather than father] just a tad.)

h-t Andy Naselli

Mounce on the vocative use of κυριος in John 20:28

Check it out.

Free Greek course online

A number have asked me for ways to learn Greek. Check out this audio, animated, online Greek course from Professor Ted Hildebrandt of Gordon College (h-t S. C. Saunders).

(I haven't gone through it yet; let me know what you think.)

The BAGD book of jokes?

Okay, maybe not quite; but I was reading in Luke 18, and saw BAGD's note on verse 5:

διά γε τὸ παρέχειν μοι κόπον τὴν χήραν ταύτην ἐκδικήσω αὐτήν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος ἐρχομένη ὑπωπιάζῃ με.

Particularly, the entry on ὑπωπιάζω. To wit:

• ὑπωπιάζω (on the v.l. ὑποπιάζειν s. W-S. §5, 19 note, end; Mlt-H. 75) (‘strike under the eye, give a black eye to’ Aristot., Rhet. 3, 11, 15, 1413a, 20; TestSol 2:4 D [ὑποπ.]; Plut., Mor. 921f; Diog. L. 6, 89)

1. to blacken an eye, give a black eye, strike in the face lit. τινά someone, of a woman who is driven to desperation and who the judge in the story thinks might in the end express herself physically ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος ἐρχομένη ὑπωπιάζῃ με so that she might not finally come and blacken my eye Lk 18:5. Hyperbole is stock-in-trade of popular storytelling. Some prefer to understand ὑπ. in this pass. in sense

2. to bring someone to submission by constant annoyance, wear down, fig. ext. of 1 (s. L-S-J-M s.v. II, NRSV, REB, et al.). In this interp. ὑπ. in Lk 18:5 has its meaning determined by εἰς τέλος. But in such case the denouement lacks punch, for the judge has already been worn down and wants nothing added to the κόπος that he has already endured. A more appropriate rendering for a fig. sense would be browbeat.—JDerrett, NTS 18, ’71/72, 178-91 (esp. 189-91): a fig. expr. (common throughout Asia), blacken my face = slander, besmirch underlies ὑπ. here.

"Lacks punch." Oh, dear.

Judean syntax (Jude 1:20-21)

Here's one for you:

ὑμεῖς δέ ἀγαπητοί ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι 21 ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

I mean to update and pretty up this post later, when I have access to my tools. But here's the deal:

1. You see that Jude has one finite verb (specifically one imperative), surrounded by three participles.
2. Me, I dismiss out of hand renderings that reduce all the participles to imperatives.
3. So what we have is one finite verb anchoring three participles. I've been surprised, though, not to find more syntactical comment on the relationship of the whole.
4. The dominant idea is keep yourselves in the love of God.
5. I take it that the first two participles indicate means: "by building yourselves up and praying"
   
6. If you accept that, is the third also modal? If not, what?

Refinements, disagreements, discussion?

Have at it.

C. F. D. Moule (1908-2007)

Professor Dan Wallace has given a very personal reflection on the passing of NT and Greek scholar Charles Francis Digby Moule (pronounced mole). Wallace also provides links to other articles on the man.

I remember when I was first learning Greek, it was impressed on me that knowing the Greek New Testament was far more than a matter of doing word-studies. It involved a grasp of syntax, and of the idioms used. (This is why interlinears are, at best, pointless.)

So I was delighted to stumble across Moule's Idiom-book of New Testament Greek. I bought it, and have used it often ever since.

But an even more delightful discovery (according to the tincture of Scots blood in me) was a discovery one year as I visited my beloved town of Bishop, California. I had learned that sometimes one can find treasures in used book stores or thrift shops. There are few finds for a lot of looking, but sometimes they're really golden.

In this case, I found a copy of C. F. D. Moule's Cambridge commentary on the Greek text of Colossians...

...for ten cents!

Now, there's been inflation since, but that was still an outrageously good deal at the time.

Now, we could chat about other aspects of Wallace's recollections. Moule seems like a genuinely charming man, and he certainly was a very solid scholar. But he did not confess the Trinity? It seems like we have a soft spot for Europeans scholars — like we're so grateful if they're even in the ballpark, so they get a "pass" on what we would call "heresy" if it were Joel Osteen or Benny Hinn.

Colossians 1:1—the will of God

Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς — Colossians 1:1

Paul often refers his apostleship to the will of God. To wit:

1 Corinthians 1:1 Παῦλος κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Σωσθένης ὁ ἀδελφὸς
2 Corinthians 1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ,
Ephesians 1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
2 Timothy 1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

I may discuss this more fully if we get to v. 9, but it's my settled conviction that Scripture teaches only two aspects to the will of God, and not three.

By the range of expressions referring to God's will, Scripture only means God's sovereign will, which it is His responsibility to affect (i.e. Ephesians 1:11), or His revealed will, which it is our responsibility to fulfill (i.e. Romans 2:18). There is no third will of God referring to neither certainly decreed events, nor inerrantly and specially revealed directions, but to subjective, erring, and personal perceptions.

Having said that, I don't argue that it is always easy to tell which of the two is in mind.

In this case, however, while both elements are present, it is the former that is probably foremost in Paul's mind. Think of Galatians 1:1 — Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Here, the stress is clearly on God's sovereign will and activity. Thus also the effectual call to be an apostle, in Romans 1:1's κλητὸς ἀπόστολος.

Now, necessarily, an apostle did receive direct and special revelation of God's will (cf. Galatians 1:11-12) . That was the nature of the office. But the phrase itself here probably means that God made Paul an apostle by sovereign appointment; the fact that it involved a special revelation is incidental to the phrase here, though essential to the office itself.

What the apostle clearly didn't mean was that, one day, in his quiet time with God, he felt a still, small voice, subtly urging him towards seeking apostleship. That isn't the way it happened. Paul didn't merely "feel moved" to be an apostle. God sovereignly willed Paul to be an apostle, so he was.

Humor break

Okay, this is just funny.

Check out Seminary Professor Caught Inventing Fake Greek Words at Tom in the Box today.

Reminds me of a tape I heard once of a very famous pastor (you'd know him) speaking on Colossians 1:15. I remember his words clearly, though it was about thirty years ago.

In Colossians 1:15 (he told us all), when Paul calls Christ the "image of God," the apostle uses the word.... Here he hesitated, then more quickly said "iknon, which is our word for 'photograph.'"

To save you looking it up, I think he was trying to say εἰκὼν. But even beyond that — well, you count the things wrong with that statement.

UPDATE: you know, I should not have assumed that you all were familiar with Tom in the Box, or would read quite enough to tell the nature of the site, or that the title "Humor break" would be a for-sure clue. It's a Christian satire/parody site, a bit like the wonderful Scrappleface, but with longer articles. They're parody.

Colossians—False teachers?

One of my favorite books in Greek has long been Colossians. It's always been a joy to read, study, translate, preach.

In scores of commentaries and introductions, it is customary to hear over and over that Paul wrote this letter in part to respond to false teachers in Colosse. "Teachers," plural; never singular, that I've seen. In A. T. Robertson's day, it was taken for granted that the false teachers were Gnostics. Don Carson says that Edwin Yamauchi's case against pre-Christian Gnosticism has never really been overturned.

But my focus is much tighter than the disputed nature of the Colossian heresy. Compare the following.

First, from Galatians, another church beset with false teaching:

1:7 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

5:10 ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε· ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίμα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ.

5:12 Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς.

Now, from Colossians:

2:4 Τοῦτο λέγω, ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ.

2:8 Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν·

2:16-19 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων· 17 ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 18 μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, 19 καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ.

What do you notice?

What I've noticed for years is that, while Galatians regularly uses the plural to describe the false teachers, Colossians always and only describes him in the singular. (The use of the singular in Galatians 5:10b, amid the other plurals, underscores that not one of the false teachers will be excepted from God's judgment.)

So why is it always assumed that there were false teachers, plural? Paul only describes one. And all it takes is one charismatic, winsome, persuasive, dynamic individual. It only takes a little leaven, after all.

The moral: read closely, don't assume. Just because "everyone" has always said something, don't assume it's true.

Just one such dangerous false teacher warranted this focused and wondrous cautionary blast from the apostle's pen.

Very instructive to us today.

1 Peter 1:3-5—Look, Ma, no finite verbs!

Alert reader Bryan C. McWhite made an interesting observation in the comments on the 1 Peter 1:5 post. He observed that there's not a finite verb to be had for love nor money in 1 Peter 1:3-5.

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν, 4 εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον, τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς 5 τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.

He asked if I had any thoughts, and I haven't. I did a fairly quick scan of grammars and commentaries, and found no light there, either.

Now, perhaps it is as simple as disputing the period at the end of verse 5, as verse 6 (beginning with ἐν ᾧ) certainly carries the thought on. It is certainly possible that the sentence stretches to verse 9. In that case, the first finite verb would be ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, in verse 6. If that's the case, however, does that reflect back on the exegesis of vv. 3-5?

The microphone is open to your thoughts as well.

Good catch, Bryan!

Keeping up your Greek

Our friend Matt Harmon posted some suggestions on keeping up Greek skills over the summer break. The same ideas would work simply in general.

Another I'd add would be always to follow along in Greek, in sermons and/or Bible studies.

Also, as you read the New Testament, assuming that you still read in English, keep your Greek New Testament handy. If you have the slightest curiosity about a word or construction, look it up in Greek.

Of course, your goal is the reverse — to do all your NT reading in Greek, and just occasionally look at English renderings.

Piper: "Brothers, Bitzer Was a Banker!"

For some convicting encouragement, read John Piper on Heinrich Bitzer, editor of the Hebrew and Greek devotional book Light on the Path.

(h-t didyktile)

1 Peter 1:5—God's notion of "eternal security"

τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.

This is taken by Arminians to indicate that we keep ourselves by our faith. If we disbelieve, we are lost.

The emphasis on the crucial nature of faith is clearly based in the text. Any teaching that makes faith non-essential is clearly not apostolic, and thus not Biblical. But the Biblical question Calvinists always pose is, "And where does a spiritually dead, God-hating rebel / dependent saint get that faith, and persevering grace?"

Peter gives the answer here. The Greek text makes it fairly clear (at least to me) that the ideas of keeping and believing are not to be divorced. It isn't as if God keeps us a little (or a lot) by His power, and we keep ourselves a little (or a lot) by our faith.

Rather, we are characterized (τοὺς) as those who are "by-the-power-of-God-kept-through-faith-unto-salvation."

Must we believe? Yes. How do we believe? By the power of God. It is how God keeps us by His power: through faith.

Thus, properly viewed, preserving and persevering faith no less than saving faith is part of the "all things" that God gives us as a result of Christ's work on the Cross (Romans 8:32; cf. Acts 11:18; 13:48; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 1:29).

1 Peter 1:2—the saving work of the Trinity

κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.

I connect κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς with ἐκλεκτοῖς in v. 1, and understand foreknowledge as God's active, distinguishing love set on persons, not his passive awareness of events. So sovereign election is in line with (κατὰ) the Father's distinguishing love.

Note then that this sovereign-grace election is in connection with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος), setting the elect apart from the mass of humanity to God's ownership and service.

This sanctification has a twofold effect or result (εἰς 2X), the first of which is ὑπακοὴν. This ὑπακοή refers to listening-from-under, listening submissively and responsively. I don't think the object of the submission is expressed, but can be inferred from the other two uses in 1 Peter, both of which are in this chapter:

1:14 ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις
1:22 Τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον, ἐκ [καθαρᾶς] καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς

It is submission to the Gospel, which is to say saving faith. See similar uses of the noun also in Peter's man Paul, in Romans 1:5; 16:26. See also the similar uses of the verb ὑπακούω in Acts 6:7; Romans 6:17; 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 5:9. It isn't the obedience that should characterize the Christian life that is in view, but the submission to the Gospel that begins and characterizes the Christian life.

The second effect of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This is an obvious allusion to OT sacrifical imagery. I take it that this means the personal application of the benefits of Christ's redemption, purchased on the Cross by the shedding of His blood.

So:

In eternity past the Father sets His distinguishing love on us in sovereign election
This involves the Spirit setting us apart to God, with two results:
—The first is our submission to the Gospel
—The second is God applying Christ's blood to us personally

Glorious passage.

1 Peter 1:3-6—study in prepositions

I've long been struck by Peter's love for (and deft use of) prepositional phrases. Do you notice them, simply reading through 1:3-6?

3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν, 4 εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον, τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς 5 τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. 6 ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὀλίγον ἄρτι εἰ δέον [ἐστὶν] λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς,

Now go t hrough it again, isolating the prepositional phrases after the introductory thought:

3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ
κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς
εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν
δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐκ νεκρῶν,
4 εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον, τετηρημένην
ἐν οὐρανοῖς
εἰς ὑμᾶς 5 τοὺς
ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους
διὰ πίστεως
εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.
6 ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὀλίγον ἄρτι εἰ δέον [ἐστὶν] λυπηθέντες
ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς,

I count thirteen prepositional phrases in four verses. They show the motive for sovereign regeneration, its outcome (in two swoops), its means, that from which Christ was raised, where our inheritance is kept and for whom, by what means and agency we are under guard and towards what end, at what time, what this provokes in us, and the circumstances amid which we rejoice.

Rich for reflection, and quite preachable!

Mark 16:6—single word freighted with immense meaning

The ladies came to the tomb early that morning, with a deeply-flawed plan.

While the menfolk cowered in their houses, despondent and shattered, the ladies came with spices, to anoint the dead body of Jesus. Their faith wasn't much better, but the boldness speaks well of them.

However, they seemed to have had no plan for what to do about the stone. They'd seen it rolled to, and they knew it would be a problem. But they had no solution. They ask each other, τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου; (v. 6). It is a good question, from their perspective, and they have no answer.

Thank God, none was needed!

The angel they meet bears a message, in fitting with his title. He says,

μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.

The perfect participle catches the eye. The angel doesn't say ἐσταυρώθη, He was crucified (aorist). Nor does he use an aorist participle. Rather, it is Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον—Jesus the Nazarene the having-been-crucified one. For all time, this would describe Him: He is the one who has been crucified, an event with eternal significance.

But after that five-word appellative, the angel offers but one: ἠγέρθη.

Did one word ever carry so much meaning? Jesus the Nazarene had been crucified, but ἠγέρθη. The word is aorist, referring to an event of history. It is in the passive voice, for He was raised by the Father. In raising Him, the Father attests His entire message and ministry, seals Jesus' claim to Deity, signals His acceptance of Christ's sacrifice for His people.

Further, it is necessarily a bodily resurrection. Who is it who ἠγέρθη? It is Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον. And who or what was crucified? It was His body. If He was crucified bodily, and He now ἠγέρθη, then He must have been raised the same way: bodily.

This is the meaning of Resurrection Day ("Easter"): ἠγέρθη.

1 Peter 1:1-2—Trinitarian writing

Sometimes anti-Trinitarians have raised the objection that the doctrine of the Trinity is never found in the Bible. If by that one means that the word "Trinity" does not appear, there will be no answering denial. But the doctrine of the Trinity is found, in my view, throughout both Old and New Testaments, providing more than enough building material for the rich Trinitarian theology that the godly have developed through the millennia.

While no formal announcement can be found, it is clear that the thinking of the apostles was so thoroughly Trinitarian that it fairly bubbled up in their wording, almost no matter what they wrote.

Πέτρος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας, 2 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.

There it is in verse two: Father, Spirit, Son. Once one begins to notice this, he discovers it unconsciously all throughout the apostles' writings, and many times in one breath, just as here (cf. Ephesians 2:18—ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ [sc. through Christ] ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα).

1 Peter — opening thoughts

As a literary artist, the writer to the Hebrews would be hard to beat. Luke is a wonderful writer; Paul's art (imho) is in his content more than his style. But the writer of 1 Peter is no piker.

Attentive readers' ears will prick up when I say "the writer of 1 Peter" instead of "Peter." The mind behind 1 Peter is Peter; I do find the amanuensis-hypothesis attractive, however. It comes from the note in 5:12—

Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι᾽ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ἣν στῆτε.

The Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ has been suggested to indicate that Peter used Silvanus as an amanuensis, to write down his thoughts, which he then reviewed and approved. At the risk of anachronism, I've been "amanuensis" to many, as has my friend Phil Johnson. My boss will give me something, I'll look it over, make reams of changes, he'll look my changes over, accept some, reject some, and out it goes.

The most fun I had as an amanuensis was when our nutcase Senatrix Barbara Boxer (—or was she just a nutcase Representative at the time? not sure) said some inane thing. That doesn't narrow it down much; pretty much every time she speaks, she says some inane thing.

But I digress.

This was years ago, and Boxer was (as liberals do) speaking for all women and saying that all women embrace abortion.

My wife, however, is a woman, and she does not embrace abortion. But she's also a very busy woman, and though she expresses herself wonderfully, doesn't love to write. So she commissioned me to write a letter to the editor, for our local newspaper. I did so with great glee. Some of the greatest writing fun I've had was writing words to this effect: "As a woman, I am deeply offended at Barbara Boxer's implication that all women's greatest value is the freedom to kill inconvenient or imperfect children...."

What I was doing was writing what I knew my wife thought, best as I could. As I recall, she read it, said, "Yep, that's it exactly," and off it went in her name.

So the liberal critics denied 1 Peter to Peter, since it was too polished.

Then it was said that 2 Peter couldn't be Petrine... because its Greek is too rough!

Read both through in Greek, and the stylistic differences are undeniable. Nothing, however, requires trashing the authority of the Word as to authorship.

It is interesting, though. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:15-16 that he is familiar with the letters of the apostle Paul. From that testimony in Second Peter, it's interesting to note this similarity in First Peter:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν,

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ,

Those are 1:3 of 1 Peter and Ephesians, respectively. (Peter packs in other themes — sovereign mercy and regeneration connected to Christ's resurrection — that Paul develops in Ephesians 1 and 2, as well.) It might be fun to find other parallels, and speculate as to Peter's familiarity with Paul's letters.

Hebrews 13:8—bang! No verb; plus....

Hebrews 13:8 is a deservedly well-known verse: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever" (NAS). The original text has no verb.

Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐχθὲς καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
"Jesus Christ: yesterday and today the same—and forever."

It is one of those verses that we know in isolation, yet it was not given as a single unit.

In expressing this thought, the skilled author glances backwards at verse 7— Μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν, οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὧν ἀναθεωροῦντες τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς μιμεῖσθε τὴν πίστιν. These (presumably deceased) leaders who spoke the word of God, preached Jesus to them. Jesus has not changed; Jesus will never change. The Jesus they preached yesterday is the Jesus who lives today, and the Jesus who will reign unto the ages to come.

His thought also carries forwards to verse 9—Διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε· καλὸν γὰρ χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν, οὐ βρώμασιν ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφελήθησαν οἱ περιπατοῦντες. Why should they not allow themselves to be carried away with various and foreign teachings? Because the truth will not change, because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today—and forever.

There's a good deal of truth in Spurgeon's remark: "Rest assured that there is nothing new in theology except that which is false; and that the facts of theology are today what they were eighteen hundred years ago."

Hebrews 13:5—not, not, not

Greekers who love the Lord, love this verse—and for good reason.

Ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος, ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν. αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν· οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω,

The context is an encouragement to godly contentment. The reason that our lifestyle should not be that of silver-lovers is given as the impossibility of the Lord's abandoning us.

First you note the emphatic introduction. The simple verb εἴρηκεν is strengthened by the αὐτὸς. It is He, no less than He and none other than He, who has said this. Also, the verb is in the perfect tense: εἴρηκεν. He has gone on record, He has made a statement, the statement stands.

But then notice the piling up of negatives. First there are two (οὐ μή), and then there are three (οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή). Not, not, nor not not.

But I learn from Wallace that even the tense strengthens the negation, as these emphatic denials are paired with subjunctives. Hear him from p. 468:

One might think that the negative with the subjunctive could not be as strong as the negative with the indicative. However, while ouv + the indica­tive denies a certainty, ouv mh, + the subjunctive denies a potentiality. The negative is not weaker; rather, the affirmation that is being negatived is less firm with the subjunctive. ouv mh, rules out even the idea as being a possibil­ity....

So perhaps a "dynamic" rendering, a paraphrase, would be: : "for He Himself has said, 'There is no conceivable way I will leave you, nor is there any conceivable way I will abandon you.'"

At any rate, it is a wonderful promise, and is well captured in the wonderful hymn How Firm a Foundation:

The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.

All praise and glory to our faithful, self-committed, oath-keeping God.