LRC 1 Peter now in Chinese!

Some time ago I had the privilege of writing the 1 Peter volume for the Lexham Research Commentary series. The commentary was a privilege to write and pulls together most of the relevant English scholarship (and just a bit of foreign scholarship) on 1 Peter to show the reader the wide range of interpretive options, including the pros and cons of many positions on a particular text. At the same time, it introduces the reader to the most relevant Petrine literature out there. The commentary has been fairly well-received (notwithstanding a solitary one-star review that based its judgment on one small section of my commentary and rather misrepresented me), and since then I have also completed 2 Peter and Jude for the same series (both due out in March).

My local church (Falls Baptist Church in Menomonee Falls, WI), has a very robust Chinese group of believers that has grown significantly over the last few years. Consequently, I was delighted to learn that my LRC on 1 Peter has now been translated into both traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, and is now available as a digital resource! I believe the rest of the LRC is being translated, as well. I trust this will be a benefit to our Chinese brothers and sisters in Christ (and to the translator[s], whoever you are, thank you for your hard work!).

The New ICC on 1 Peter by Williams and Horrell: Positive Initial Impressions

First Peter is no longer the "Exegetical Stepchild" that John H. Elliott once labeled it. The last decade has produced a plethora of monographs and commentaries dealing with this epistle, including but not limited to the Ruth Anne Reese's New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Craig Keener's stand-alone commentary for Baker Academic, Dennis Edwards' Story of God Bible Commentary, my own Lexham Research Commentary, and Catherine Gunsalus González's Belief theological commentary. In addition, Baker just put out Karen Jobes' 2nd edition of her Baker Exegetical Commentary, which remains (in my humble-but-opinionated-opinion) the commentary of choice for any minister's library.

This past year also saw the publication of the new, massive, 2-volume International Critical Commentary Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell (T&T Clark). This replaces the previous ICC on 1 Peter by Charles Biggs, a volume which also contained 2 Peter and Jude (in my opinion, Biggs' commentaries on 2 Peter and Jude were better than his commentary on 1 Peter).

I intend here to give a few positive initial impressions of Williams and Horrell's epic tome ("epic" in the sense of "It's got 800+ pages per volume!!"). First, a couple caveats:

1. Notwithstanding the immense value to be had from this ICC (despite its hefty price tag), Jobes' commentary still remains the best for pastoral work, and should be the first one to be purchased by any seminarian or minister seeking to preach on or develop a Bible study on the topic (for second place, I would suggest Wayne Grudem [Tyndale], Reese, or perhaps Keener for the wealth of his background material). For my reflections here, I am dealing with the value of this ICC for academic study.

2. I am a bit biased towards this commentary, because I have enjoyed a cordial correspondence with Dr. Williams regarding 1 and 2 Peter and NT scholarship in general, and also because their commentary cites my work a number of times (not always in agreement, but always fairly). It is worth noting that Williams studied under Horrell at the University of Exeter, and in fact it seems to me that Horrell has been mentoring a relatively high number of Petrine scholars in the past couple decades compared to other professors at top-tier universities. In other words, a lot of interesting work on 1 Peter has been coming out of Exeter. 

With that in mind, here are a number of positive observations regarding this commentary:

1. First, this ICC can probably claim to be the most well-researched commentary ever written on 1 Peter (though Keener's commentary has an immense number of primary/ancient sources). Williams and Horrell have put together a bibliography with over 2,500 sources (the bibliography runs from pages 657–816, and I am "guesstimating" about 16 sources per page).

2. Second, you can rest assured that the authors represent some of the best in the field of Petrine scholarship. I confess that one of my pet peeves is when a scholar who has written virtually no peer-reviewed material on a particular book of the Bible ends up writing a commentary on it in a major series. Such authors are usually (though not always) at a disadvantage in regards to understanding the secondary literature, and thus their commentary is usually (though not always) subpar, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion (and yes, I have a specific example in mind, albeit on a different book than 1 Peter). No worries here, as both Williams and Horrell are already easily in the top-10 of Petrine scholarship, at least where English is a primary language. Williams, the junior member of the team, by himself has published two full monographs on 1 Peter, each in a different prestigious European series, not to mention eight peer-reviewed articles specifically on 1 Peter, four of which are in tier-1 journals (and Williams' article in ZNTW significantly influenced my own thinking on 1 Peter).

3. Third, even a cursory glance indicates that Williams and Horrell interact with the Greek text in a very detailed manner. (This is not a a commentary for casual perusal!) For the record, the commentary flows verse-by-verse and clause-by-clause, making it much easier to find a discussion on a particular point of the text.

4. Fourth, the authors do an excellent job of discussing competing viewpoints. And yes, for those of you who were wondering, there is an entire excursus of 7 pages (2:215–221) devoted to the "history of interpretation" of the phrase "preached to the spirits in prison," with 18 pages (2:221–238) that actual exegete the text and discuss the various viewpoints. Interestingly, the commentary takes the minority view that the phrase refers to "disembodied human souls" rather than fallen angels.

So there you have it, the next big thing in Petrine scholarship. These positive comments should not be taken as an endorsement of all the views held to by the authors, of course (and my own position is that Peter himself wrote the book, while allowing for the possibility of an amanuensis), but this is a commentary that libraries and serious Petrine academics need to purchase.

Douglas Kennard's new Petrine Theology

True Petrine theologies are few and far between, whereas one cannot throw a rock without hitting a dozen Pauline theologies (or Pauline theologians, for that matter!) As somebody who has contributed a little bit to this neglected field, I am excited to have received a copy of Douglas W. Kennard's Petrine Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022).

Kennard is a professor at the Houston Graduate School of Theology, and in his previous writings he has specialized in biblical theology and hermeneutics. Along with Petrine Theology he has published a companion book entitled Petrine Studies (also with Wipf & Stock).

Kennard's Petrine Theology is about as holistic a "Petrine theology" as one could ask for, and that's a good thing. He utilizes 1 and 2 Peter, along with the Petrine material in Acts and the Gospels, to cover a variety of topics. These include broader theological categories ("God," "Christology") as well as more specific Petrine emphases ("Suffering," "False Teachers"). All of this is developed from the important premise that "The early church considered Peter to be the foundation for apostolic Christian tradition" (p. 1), and thus the modern church should not neglect the Apostle Peter's own specific perspectives.

The book is well-researched and well-thought out, with an excellent level of interaction with both primary and secondary sources. [Allow me, though, to express my irritation at having my own name misspelled as "Hines" in the bibliography; actually, he cites two works of mine, one of them as "Himes" and the other as "Hines." Another top-notch Petrine scholar, Benjamin Sargent, also misspells me as "Hines"; oh well. I'm sure I've done the same to some other author somewhere in my published works--my apologies if that is you, dear reader! And I'm happy that Kennard at least mentions my work. End of rant! ☺]

At times the book reads more like a systematic theology, e.g., chapter 2 on "God," which has a tendency to state a description about God and then bolster it with Petrine material, rather than tracing a Petrine theological theme per se). Even so, it is immensely valuable since it points us to the Apostle Peter's specific perspective while demonstrating how it is congruent with the rest of Scripture. Also, Kennard aptly embraces the important role that Old Testament theology plays in Peter's theology.

Books on the Apostle Peter's theology are rare, and books that take seriously the Petrine material in Acts and the Gospels as part of that theology are extremely rare. I am pleased to announce that Kennard joins the distinguished ranks of Larry Helyer (The Life and Witness of Peter), Pheme Perkins (Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church) and Gene Green (Vox Petri: A Theology of Peter) as an important advocate for the Apostle Peter's theology.

Ruth Anne Reese's new commentary on 1 Peter: initial impressions

As a petrine specialist and the author of the Lexham Research Commentary on 1 Peter, I am excited that this is turning out to be an awesome decade for 1 Peter commentaries. Craig Keener just published his magisterial background commentary; Karen Jobes' 2nd edition of her Baker Exegetical commentary (which, in my opinion, still remains the best overall) is due out soon; Travis Williams and David Horrell's epic ICC is in production; and W. Edward Glenny's ECC with Lexham is supposed to come out anytime now.

In the midst of all that, we are privileged with another commentary that Ruth Anne Reese (Asbury Theological Seminary) just published a few months ago. As a series, the "New Cambridge Bible Commentary" has as one of its strengths a robust focus on background issues, as  well as segments entitled "A Closer Look" and "Bridging  the Horizons" which allow the author to focus  a bit more on key topics of his or her choice. The series as a whole is not, by my observation, intended to be evangelical  per se, but it actually contains a significant number of broadly evangelical authors (e.g.,  Ben Witherington III and Craig Keener both author or co-author multiple commentaries). My readers can rest assured that Reese approaches the book from a strongly confessional perspective, and she affirms Peter's authorship of the epistle which bears his name (see page 19). 

The book demonstrates a solid grasp of secondary and primary literature, especially considering its relatively smaller size. Reese cites recent petrine scholarship, such as that of Travis Williams, frequently, and even manages to fit Keener's new commentary in there (though it came out just months before hers!). Key background works are often cited (e.g., Hengel, Crucifixion; Bain, Women's Socioeconomic Status), as well as ancient sources (e.g., Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom). Another strength is that Reese also cites sources outside of New Testament studies to further enrich her observations.

The commentary generally proceeds verse-by-verse or with short clusters of verses. The commentary is fairly well accessible to those without training in Greek (and Reese transliterates key Greek words and phrases). This is both an advantage  and a disadvantage. It fits well with  the  series' desire to embrace "jargon-free" language, and this commentary is definitely more accessible than those by Davids, Jobes, Keener, etc. The downside is that sometimes a difficult phrase in the Greek text will not receive the attention it receives in more technical commentaries.

The "Closer Look" sections peer  into the social and historical  background of 1 Peter (e.g., pages 134-6 and what constituted "Good Works" in ancient culture). With the "Bridging the Horizons" section, Reese is able to link her observations on the text with theology for the church (e.g., the excellent discussion on spiritual identity and suffering on pages 81-82).

A strength of the  commentary, then, is its ability to meld solid exegesis with theological and practical application. Naturally I would disagree with Reese in a few places. I am very hesitant, for example to assert that "It is clear that the church is portrayed as Israel in 1 Peter" (p. 128), and I believe she too quickly downplays the role of evangelistic vocal proclamation in 1 Peter, though without denying it altogether (e.g., page 207 fn 367). In my opinion, a more balanced treatment of the latter point can be found in Torrey Seland's excellent article, "Resident Aliens in Mission," in Bulletin for Biblical Research vol.  19 (2009). Nonetheless, Reese's treatments of the various issues are solid, well-informed, and often theologically and practically relevant.

Reese, in my opinion is one of the more readable writers out there within Petrine scholarship, i.e., regarding the ability to make it easier to plow through their book (her Two Horizons Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude is also excellent reading and quite quotable). Witherington is another one of the better petrine writers, imo, when he's not getting bogged down in the technical details rhetorical analysis (though for the most accessible treatment of Peter in general, I highly recommend Larry Helyer's The Life and Witness of Peter).

For the curious, here is a very quick tour of Reese's positions on some key topics. As already noted, she does affirm Peter as the author, suggesting that he wrote sometime between AD 65-68 (p. 17).

1. Peter was writing from Rome (p. 7; "Babylon"  = Rome; this is the  standard position  for almost all  commentators these days, regardless of theological persuasion. Somewhere in heaven John Calvin may still be objecting vociferously, unless the Apostle Peter himself has set him straight).

2. Also with the majority of commentaries these days, Reese sees the audience as a mix of Jews and  Gentiles (certainly plausible, though I confess I am finding myself more and more drawn to the vocal minority view of Witherington's and others that the audience was primarily Jewish)

3. In 2:2, regarding what "milk" is referring to, Reese follows Jobes in seeing more christology than bibliology (p. 106).

4. Reese's perspective on Sarah calling Abraham "Lord" is complicated (177-180), and here I feel that perhaps a deeper discussion of alternative interpretive options would help. She does, however, provide a comparative analysis with Philo on Sarah, concluding that "Both idealized portraits are presented in a particular context," yet that "In 1 Peter, women who have courageously chosen  a dangerous path [Christianity], . . . are reminded  that Sarah  also faced danger when she obeyed her husband" (p. 179). Reese also wishes that this passage not be read as forcing  women  to endure abuse without recourse or help, and suggests that "Our  interpretation  of 1 Peter 3:6 need not be prescriptive for every marriage and every situation  that a Christian wife may encounter" (p. 179).

It is with  a sense of irony (because I am a complementarian) that I note that my Lexham Research Commentary was roasted over a bed of hot coals by a 1-star reviewer on the Logos website on precisely this issue (he basically accused me of caving in to feminism for daring to suggest that it is a bad thing to utilize this text to justify abuse against women,  and for citing feminist authors positively, notwithstanding my strong critique of J. Bird, which the reviewer ignored). Now,  in this case, while I would agree with Reese's concerns  against legitimizing abuse, I am much more hesitant  to downplay the  normative nature of 1 Peter 3:1-6. I think we can  "have our  cake  and eat  it too," so to speak, by seeing this text as broadly applicable in every marriage but yet allowing  a woman to seek for sanctuary and legal protection if she is abused. I have discussed this more in depth in  my LRC on 1 Peter. Nonetheless, Reese's discussion contains some helpful material.

5. Regarding "the spirits in prison" in 3:19, I think Reese holds to the view that the phrase refers to the  fallen  angels ("sons of God") in Genesis 6. At least she portrays that view more positively than the other views (p. 218, "The greater context of suffering argues for a message of triumph over enemies . . ."), though she is not dogmatic.  Notwithstanding the strong objections of Wayne Grudem, I personally feel that is the best way to understand the text (no offense to Dr. Grudem, whose Tyndale commentary is, in my opinion, the best commentary for an undergrad class or a church Bible study). 

6. For the OT background to 1 Peter 4:17a, Reese provides  an excellent discussion of the pros and cons of each suggested text before concluding that "It is best to see the background for the idea of judgment  beginning with the household of God as deriving from the generally well-known Old Testament idea that  God is the judge of all the nations and that God's judgment begins with God's own people" (p. 274).

Bottom line: this  is an excellent mid-sized commentary with good depth but also excellent practical and theological discussion. While it will not replace Jobes' BECNT as my commentary of choice for teaching a graduate class, and obviously it will not provide the massive amount of background material one finds in Keener's commentary (but then, who could?), Reese's commentary is still worth its weight in gold and possibly among the top five I would recommend for any evangelical pastor's library.

Note: I purchased this commentary with my own money and was under no obligation to provide a positive review. However, [bias alert!], since Reese cites me positively at one point, I am naturally more favorably inclined towards the commentary. Also, by that logic, Keener's new commentary (which cites me 5 times!) is the greatest commentary ever, and anything Keener writes is golden. 😊  I am being facetious, of course, but as a relatively minor-leaguer, it's nice to be noticed by both Keener and Reese, or at least by their graduate assistants.

Born Again from Incorruptible Seed: 1 Peter 1:23-25 and eternal security

In soteriology I am somewhere between an Arminian and a Calvinist, a "Calviminian," if you will (I resist the impulse to claim that I'm a "biblicist," since that's a bit snooty; anybody who prioritizes the text of Scripture over all other sources in forming their theology is a "biblicist," whether they be Arminian or Calvinist or in-between). I hold to eternal security but also resistible grace. I have benefitted greatly from the writings of Arminians, many of whom are well worth reading on a variety of topics (the great Charles Wesley, after all, believed a Christian could lose his or her salvation; see his sermon "The Great Privilege of Those that Are Born of God"). Nonetheless, I skew very strongly towards the "eternal security of all true believers" side of the debate, without quite embracing everything packed into the "perseverance of the saints" portion  of the "Tulip," at least not quite as articulated by some Calvinists.

Yet overall I consider myself an exegete more than a theologian, and I feel I can articulate better the meaning of a particular text over the meaning and implications of a particular doctrine. In other words, I'm a better "little picture" guy than a "big picture" guy.

Recently the online journal Sacrum Testamentum published my article "'Born Again from Incorruptible Seed': The Irrevocable Nature of Salvation in 1 Peter." The specific article is linked to here, and the whole issue can be read here. Sacrum Testamentum is not as well-known or prestigious (not in the same ballpark as JETS, BBR, BibSac, etc.) I believe it is by invitation-only, it focuses strictly on the doctrine of eternal security, but it does have a peer-review process (my article was peer-reviewed).

Regardless, for anybody interested in 1 Peter's use of LXX Isaiah 40, this may be a helpful article. At one point the article contains a side-by-side comparison of the Greek of 1 Peter 1:24-25a, Isa 40:6-8 LXX [Greek], and Isa 40:6-8 MT [Hebrew], as well as providing an in-depth study of the context of Peter's quotation from Isaiah 40. My overall argument is that Peter's use of Isaiah 40 logically necessitates eternal security, because the idea that God's divinely implanted "seed" could fail to accomplish its task goes completely contrary to the contrast set up in Isaiah and 1 Peter between man's work and God's work. Here is a paragraph from near the end of my article:

"Secondly, one must ask: if one is currently a child of the divine nature, can such status be lost? In other words, can one’s 'born-again' status be revoked? Only if the divine seed could be corrupted or destroyed, and the Word of God’s creation of the new birth within somebody be voided. Yet to this possibility both Isaiah and Peter respond with a definitive 'No!' The divine seed cannot fail in what it has initiated (cf. Isa 55:11). To participate in the new birth means that the divine seed has already been implanted, and if the divine seed has been implanted, it cannot possibly waste away or fail to create eternal life (as if it were mere agricultural seed that could be cut down by the wind). This is the whole point of Peter’s argument. While man either chooses to accept or reject the Word of God and the resurrected Christ (1 Pet 2:4–8), both the giving and the sustaining of that new life is the work of God, not man.75 [citing Feldmeier's essay; see below] Thus 1 Pet 1:23 stresses that the Word of God which initiates rebirth remains forever, i.e., 'can never be made ineffective'!76" [quoting from Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter].

In conclusion, the reader might also be interested in two lesser-known (but helpful) sources I found when researching for this article, sources that deal specifically with the "born-again" language in 1 Peter: Katherine Anne Girsch, "Begotten Anew: Divine Regeneration and Identity Construction in 1 Peter," (PhD diss., University of Durham, 2015); and Reinhard Feldmeier, "Wiedergeburt [New Birth] im 1. Petrusbrief," in Wiedergeburt, ed. Reinhard Feldmeier, Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecth, 2005). Also, Martin Williams has written an entire monograph on soteriology in 1 Peter, The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter, SNTSMS 149 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Craig Keener's New Commentary on 1 Peter: Initial Impressions

As of June this year, we are all indebted to Craig S. Keener for yet another commentary on a New Testament book. Entitled simply 1 Peter: A Commentary, it is published by Baker Academic and showcases many of Keener's strengths in writing and research. Keener is one of my favorite NT scholars, and though I am an independent Baptist I even benefitted from his book Spirit Hermeneutics while I was working through, for my own benefit (and that of my Hermeneutics class), the role of the Spirit in studying Scripture.

I think what sets this book apart is the incredible detail given to primary and ancient sources, a specialty of Keener's (as those of us who have used his 4-volume  commentary on Acts know). To put this in perspective: the bibliography of primary sources is 23 pages of two columns, and his index of ancient sources, not including Scripture, is a jaw-dropping 61 and a half pages, including everything from Theon of Smyrna to Virgil to Phaedrus to Cicero. 

Also, in the midst of the commentary Keener consistently inserts "A Closer Look" segments that deal with background issues such as "Marriage Expectations in Greco-Roman Antiquity" or "Providence, Fate, and Predestination in Antiquity." Other commentaries have done this on a limited basis, but for Keener this is a main feature of the commentary.

A couple notes on content: Keener competently defends Petrine authorship (pp. 8-25), suggests that in 3:19 the reference is to fallen angels and that ". . . ancient audiences might take for granted that Christ's proclamation to the spirits was not an invitation to repentance, but rather a proclamation  of their complete subjugation" (p. 275), seems to tentatively prefer the view that eperōtēma in 3:21 means "pledge" (p. 283), and states regarding the crux interpretum of 4:17 that "In the OT, God was sometimes more strict with his own people first, since they knew better (Jer. 25:29; Amos 3:2; cf. Isa. 10:12)" and that "Believers may experience even unjust suffering as divine discipline in one sense (cf. Heb. 12:3-11), as something to make them better. But one could be assured that if even the righteous suffer, judgment will come far more harshly on those who disobey the gospel . . . ."

I would also note that a hermeneutical strength of this commentary is Keener's focus on how Peter's original audience would have understood something, based on primary sources from that time period.

The only critiques I have at this point are that Keener's use of primary and/or ancient sources may seem a bit excessive at times (e.g., page 239, where basically half the page consists of footnotes referring to ancient sources), and the "Closer Look" sections, while helpful, have a tendency to crop up in places where they disrupt the commentary on a particular verse. In addition, they can be somewhat lengthy, going on for pages and pages before one returns to the actual commentary.

Nonetheless, this is a milestone for Petrine commentaries. For academics (professors, grad students, and anybody trying to publish anything on 1 Peter), this becomes one of the essential commentaries up there with Paul J. Achtemeier, Karen Jobes,  Leonhard Goppelt, and John H. Elliott, definitely in the "top 5" most important commentaries. For pastoral work, both Jobes' Baker Exegetical Commentary and Wayne Grudem's Tyndale Commentary are more accessible, and thus maintain their position as the two essential commentaries for pastors or Bible-study leaders, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, though Keener's would still be a very helpful addition to any pastor's library if their budget allows.

Having said all that, full-disclosure, one reason I am excited and positively inclined towards Keener's commentary is because this is the first commentary on 1 Peter to cite some of my own work on 1 Peter. But I trust my readers will forgive that personal bias.

The Next Two Great Commentaries on 1 Peter (Williams/Horrell and Keener)

As a Petrine "specialist," it's my job and privilege to keep up with significant works on 1 and 2 Peter. Sadly, there has not been a hugely significant commentary on 1 Peter since Karen  Jobes' Baker Exegetical Commentary in 2005 (the best commentary overall, IMO) and Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary in 2007. Although there are some promising works languishing in limbo that I desperately hope will come out within this decade (*cough* Edward Glenny's Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1 Peter *cough* Where are you!!!), I am happy to inform my readers of two very significant commentaries that are on the verge of being published. 

First up, Craig Keener has written a stand-alone commentary on 1 Peter by Baker Academic (click here for the publisher's page). I am very excited about this, because I like Keener's work, though his massive 4-volume commentary on Acts is a wee-bit intimidating (yes, 4 volumes; and each volume has a gajillion pages; oh, and the last volume is basically a bibliography so massive it makes War and Peace look like Horton Hears a Who!). Keener has also written an excellent commentary on Galatians that I made sure we acquired for my school's library.

Second, I'm very excited about the duo of David G. Horrell and Travis B. Williams publishing the new International Critical Commentary on 1 Peter. The latter completed his dissertation under the former, and both have produced significant books and articles on 1 Peter. I don't think Bloomsbury has a page for this forthcoming work yet, though there is a page for it on "ResearchGate." I have corresponded with Dr. Williams, however, and he assures me it is very close to being published.

These commentaries will differ in significant ways (I am fairly certain Keener's is more likely to favor direct Petrine authorship). Both, however, will be essential for serious academic work on 1 Peter, and I'm certain both will have some excellent insights that will benefit sermon preparation (and I intend to purchase both for my own personal library). In the meanwhile, for those who just can't wait, you're welcome to make my publisher happy and purchase my recent Lexham Research Commentary on 1 Peter (pardon the shameless plug; though in all honesty you should buy Jobes and Grudem first, if you're a pastor, and Jobes, Elliott, and Achtemeier first, if you're a graduate student).

1 Peter: The Essential Scholars

 I just completed a first for me: recording, via a translator in a professional studio, lectures on 1 Peter in a foreign language for Christians in a Restricted Access Nation. More details are withheld for obvious reasons.

When lecturing in such a setting to such an audience (some of whom are probably new Christians), obviously you do not want to be overly-technical or bore the audience with surveys of scholarship. Citation of sources has to be cut down significantly, especially since the audience is guaranteed to have no clue whom you are talking about.

Having said that, it is utterly impossible to completely eliminate secondary sources with a clear conscience. The development of my own perspectives on 1 Peter owes too much to various scholars for me not to mention them. Lecturing in this manner, however, helps you boil secondary sources into what I would call "the essentials." [Forgive me, but I am focusing on English resources here, though I do mention two German scholars that easily retain their value even across the Atlantic]

Now, I generally stuck to conservative evangelical sources, since this is an audience that really needs the basics of 1 Peter, not critical scholarship. Having said that, one or two non-evangelical scholars occasionally made it in to my notes, though I don't think I mentioned any by name in the lecture itself (something like "as one scholar said" can protect you from oral plagiarism well enough; preachers take note! It is better to say "As one scholar said . . ." than to make your congregation think you came up with that nifty quote).

Here, then, are the scholars that I absolutely could not live without in the formation of my notes. 

First, for general scholarship on 1 Peter: Karen Jobes, Wayne Grudem, and John H. Elliott. To that I might have added Paul Achtemeier, except that I didn't have access to him when I was making my notes, though I have cited him frequently in formal academic publication. I think any evangelical pastor with just Jobes and Grudem has enough material to preach through 1 Peter, but of course we academic lecturers need more (and reading Elliott was, probably more than anything, formative in the direction of my own dissertation and subsequent monograph). Also, if this had been a more advanced graduate-class instead of for young Christians in an RAN, I would have probably incorporated more work by Reinhard Feldmeier (though I believe I used him at least once or twice anyways).

[I would like to add as a side-note that for those who would like to publish more popular level work on 1 Peter, Catherine Gonzalez's "Belief" commentary on 1-2 Peter and Jude is extremely quotable. Although not "essential" in the same way as those above, it's probably more enjoyable!] 

Secondly, there are a number of scholars whom I consider essential in regards to a specific point or two, who also found their way into my notes. These are Travis Williams (especially on persecution in 1 Peter and the interpretation of 1 Peter 2:13), Leonhard Goppelt, because of his magisterial quote on Jesus as the Rock (though this may have to do more with John Alsup's translation; I have tried and so far failed to locate that quote in the German), and David Horrell's article in NTS on ethnic language in 1 Peter 2:9, all of which are essential to my own understanding of the second chapter of this epistle. The interested reader should note that Williams and Horrell are teaming up on the revised ICC on 1 Peter, which I am looking forward to greatly! Also, William Dalton has written what is probably the definitive examination of the infamous "spirits in prison" passage (1 Pet 3:19) and is able to show us how that passage can be viewed vis-à-vis the theme of the suffering Christ triumphant over spiritual powers and glorified, as comfort to suffering Christians.

Those are, more-or-less, the essentials, imo, though there were a number of other scholars whom I cited just because I liked something they had to say: my friend Tim Miller on apologia in 1 Pet 3:15; Dennis Edwards, who in his Story of God commentary noted the thematic contrast between humility and pride as the devil's sin in 1 Peter 5; Selwyn, who makes an interesting point about the purifying effect of suffering (and to be fair Selwyn is considered the "classic" commentary of the first 75 years of the 20th century!). Other scholars (Witherington, Kelly, Helyer, Davids) also found their way into my notes, but nobody plays as important role for me as Jobes, Grudem, and Elliott (with Williams coming in a close fourth).

It's Out! My article in Evangelical Quarterly on 1 Peter and the hermeneutical value of social scientific criticism.

I am grateful that Evangelical Quarterly has just published an article of mine: Paul A. Himes, "First Peter's Identity Theology and the Community of Faith: A Test-Case in How Social-Scientific Criticism Can Assist with Theological Ethics Via Biblical Theology," Evangelical Quarterly vol. 89.2 (April 2018): 115-132.

I fully acknowledge that the title is not exactly the must conducive to generating interest!

However, what I'm trying to accomplish with this article is to show how the study of the social world of the audience of 1 Peter is actually relevant to Hermeneutics. My argument is that the author (Peter) responds to his audience's social world via biblical theology, and this can help us determine how to apply the biblical truths Peter develops in relation to our own world without misapplying and abusing Scripture.

Now, a word of encouragement for budding doctoral students wishing to publish. This article had a long, tortuous journey involving 2 complete rewrites, at least 2 significant revisions, and multiple rejections, before finally being accepted for publication by Evangelical Quarterly. The kernel for this article originally was planted in 2009 or 2010 as a submission to Word&World's student paper competition, where I focused on the Christian's relationship to the government; the paper did not win, but I did receive a free year's subscription to W&W for trying!

Then, fast-forward about 5-6 years. I totally rewrote the paper to focus more on "Identity Theology" in 1 Peter (material I had begun to explore in my dissertation), drawing on some new material recently published by Travis Williams on 1 Peter 2:13 that had changed the way I thought about that passage; I still kept the focus on "the Christian and government" and presented it at the "Bible Faculty Summit" in 2015 (rewrite #1). I then revised it and sent it in to "journal A", which rejected it so fast I figured my approach was completely wrong (for one thing, I believe I was focusing too much on attacking American exceptionalism).

I completely re-imagined and rewrote the paper once more (so: rewrite #2), this time relegating the topic of "the Christian and government" to the final section of the paper, envisioning it as the telos [goal] in a hermeneutical process that begins with "social scientific criticism," passes through "biblical theology," and then leads to ethics (and I found a great quote by Adolf Schlatter to start it off!) I then sent it to "journal B" at which point I made a tactical mistake, misunderstanding the nature of the journal (let's face it: I thought I knew what they meant by "theological interpretation of Scripture," but apparently I have no clue). I promptly sent it to "journal C," which also rejected it albeit more politely and with feedback for further revision.

So, then, with slightly more revision, I sent it in to Evangelical Quarterly, where it was tentatively recommended by the anonymous peer-reviewer, albeit not exactly with oodles of enthusiasm! Still, the article at least makes some kind of contribution to scholarship, so I'm grateful for EvQ and the opportunity to publish with them (this had been my first time sending a paper to EvQ). Normally my motto for submitting articles for publication is "3-strikes and I'm out" (i.e., if three journals reject it, the paper is probably not worth publishing). However, in this case, since the paper was a radically different paper than what "journal A" had rejected, I justified sending it to EvQ as my 3rd journal, and I'm glad I did! [For the record, EvQ gives pretty good feedback for revision, at least in my case]

Here's the point, for budding doctoral students and even those past doctoral studies that are working at getting published: keep working at it!  There is a point at which you should shelve a paper, but not until you receive a few unambiguous rejections (and even then, you may consider rewriting it and trying again elsewhere if you truly feel you have something worth publishing and have received positive feedback from objective academics).

Although my EvQ article is behind a paywall, if somebody wishes a copy they may e-mail me at phimes@gmail.com and I am allowed to provide them a pdf for personal/educational use. Here is the abstract [note the British spelling: "recognise" is not a typo]

"Evangelicals recognise that exegesis must ultimately lead towards ethics, or practical Christian living. Unfortunately, too often the roadmap for that process has been neglected, and the link between the two becomes disjointed. This article discusses SSC, biblical theology, and ethics in 1 Peter, but attempts to contribute to the discussion by showing how the three interrelate, in that the identity theology of 1 Peter represents a reaction to the social-religious circumstances of its audience. This reaction, in turn, naturally allows the author to transition into ethics for the Christian. By being aware of this interrelation (with biblical theology as the 'hinge’ between SSC and ethics), the modern Christian can properly apply 1 Peter’s theology to their own circumstances and avoid potential abuses."

Lexham Bible Guide: 1 Peter (a Research Commentary)

I am excited to announce the Lexham Bible Guide: 1 Peter. This has been my first project for Lexham Press/Logos (though hopefully not my last). Up until this point, my published work on 1 Peter has consisted of Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter (published by Wipf&Stock), "Peter and the Prophetic Word," an article attempting to develop a Petrine theology of prophecy  (Bulletin for Biblical Research), and an article on 1 Peter's use of Isa 28:16 in 1 Peter 2:6, also in Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 26.2 (2016); I also have a forthcoming article in Evangelical Quarterly on the intersection between social-scientific criticism, biblical theology, and ethics in 1 Peter.

Although John Elliott once famously quipped that 1 Peter was the "exegetical step-child" of the New Testament, I can happily say that is no longer the case. I had a wealth of material to draw from, including a plethora of solid commentaries. 1 Peter is neglected no more (which is more than can be said for 2 Peter and Jude . . . .).

The publisher's website describes The Lexham Bible Guide series as "The starting point for study and research," and I believe that's an apt description. The books in the series are, in a sense, commentaries, but not verse-by-verse. For my own contribution on 1 Peter, I would suggest it would be appropriate to see it as a research commentary that pays special attention to the specific, controversial issues within 1 Peter and to 1 Peter's intersection with theological themes elsewhere in Scripture, while functioning as a guide for the reader regarding the best secondary sources (both available in Logos and those outside of Logos) for studying this epistle.

This commentary/guide breaks up 1 Peter into discourse units (with justification) and then for each unit generally covers the following (though not all sections have extended word studies or background overviews): 1. Overview, 2. Structure, 3. Place within the book (i.e., its role as a discourse unit within 1 Peter, structurally and theologicaly), 4. Place within the Canon (i.e., how 1 Peter's theological intersects with the theology of the rest of Scripture), 5. Various key issues (where I lay out the various positions and make some comments on each; occasionally I'll have a strong opinion and put in my "two cents worth," but usually the point is to provide the reader with the data and the arguments, and let them come to their own conclusions), 6. word studies (in which I make it a point to not rely on lexicons, but rather focus on a word's use in the LXX and 1st century literature, especially Josephus; not all sections contain word studies), 7. background studies (not all sections contain background studies), and 8. application overview (this latter section, I believe, sets the Lexham Bible Guides apart from most commentaries).

In this research commentary, I cite somewhere between 300-350 sources. Seventeen of those were published in 2016, and three of those were published in 2017 (including Dennis Edward's Story of God Commentary on 1 Peter and my friend Timothy Miller's recent BibSac article on 1 Peter 3:1-17). I especially cite those sources that are easily accessible to the Logos user within the Logos system: needless to say, the commentaries by Karen Jobes, Peter Davids, Paul Achtemeier, and John Elliott feature prominently, as well as (to my pleasant surprise, since I had been previously unfamiliar with it) Catherine González's recent theological commentary. However, I don't stop there, since the point of this research commentary series is to introduce the reader to all (or almost all; I doubt that I caught everything!) significant publications on a particular issue (including foreign language sources). Consequently,  I introduce the reader to important resources outside of Logos, such as numerous significant articles by Travis Williams and David Horrell, the work of Reinhard Feldmeier, etc.

In summary, this is meant to be a starting point for research and a general overview of the content and controversial issues within first Peter (and yes, I spend a lot of space discussing "Christ preaching to the spirits in prison"!). I hope the reader will consider adding it to his or her Logos library.

Free from the anxiety of politics: reflections on a practical aspect of 1 Peter 2:16

Like many evangelical Christians, I've come to the conclusion that this year's US presidential election offers basically the worst two choices in the history of the country. On the one hand

[warning: tongue in cheek comments to follow, but only slightly tongue in cheek], 

if Trump gets elected we'll be embroiled in a thermonuclear war within the year, and the whole country will go bankrupt (hey, if he can't keep a Casino with his name running, how can he keep the country afloat?); not to mention giving evangelical Christianity a bad testimony due to our traditional support of the Republican party (Jimmy Carter notwithstanding). On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is elected, folks like me will probably be thrown in jail for not being "progressive" enough in our Christianity (i.e., for daring to suggest that God made only two genders!).

Fortunately, First Peter has the solution. Written to a group of (literal and spiritual) strangers, the Apostle articulates how, in Christ Jesus, we are all part of a "holy nation," a "royal priesthood," etc. (2:9). In other words, the Christian's first and foremost loyalty is to a different nation, not the United States, or New Zealand, or Japan, or anything else.

This theological social-spiritual identity (both "new nation" and "strangers"), then, becomes the basis for ethics in 1 Peter (2:11 through much of the rest of the epistle). Peter urges us to honor all humans, in the process not-so-subtly asserting (in both vv. 13 and 17) that the Emperor himself should be respected only as another human, not as a demi-god, the "savior of the kosmos" that some were heralded as (see Travis Williams, "The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar," ZNW, for further discussion).

I'd like to focus on one fascinating word here: "free" (2:16). I believe Friedrich Schroger, in his book Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief ("Church/Community in 1 Peter") absolute nails it with this quote (forgive my rough translation from the German):

"The Christian is 'free' because he expects nothing from Caesar or from the governor, but all from the Lord--not from 'Lord Caesar,' but from 'Lord Christ.' The criteria and requirement for what is here meant as 'freedom' is that one is free from the anxieties of his own salvation, he stands completely in the favor of God, and he is free from anxiety in his interaction with humankind" (pages 147-148).

My Christian friends, Peter's concept of "freedom" does not mean "freedom to vote." Rather, it means "freedom to continue on as God's child and emissary no matter who wins the stinking election!" I.e., we do not depend on any political outcome to keep us free or to ensure are mental well-being. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can threaten our freedom in Jesus Christ--so what's the point in worrying? Have we forgotten that Peter, Mary, Luke, not to mention Jesus himself, lived under a tyrannical empire that routinely crucified its enemies, exposed infants to die on the hilltop, and reveled in such lascivious excess it would make a night in Las Vegas resemble an episode of "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood"? Yet Peter, Mary, and the others remembered something that we've forgotten: it's not our responsibility to change the word [i.e., "America"]; rather, it's our responsibility to live and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as emissaries of a different, much more sacred, nation! 

Now if, in the process of doing so, we can act as good stewards of our inherited democracy and so influence our nation in order to live "quiet and peaceable lives," so be it. Personally, I doubt either Trump or Clinton will help us achieve that goal, but whatever. The bottom line is, to paraphrase Schroger, no matter who wins, we are still "free" from anxiety; we owe nothing to any president, we still have a relationship to God through Jesus Christ, and we don't need to worry about how to relate to the world around us. Simply be a Christian, a child of the kingdom, and stop worrying about what happens to America. It's not really important in the grand scheme of things (the Lord said, "the nations are as a drop in the bucket," Isaiah 40:15) except to the extent that it helps or hinders the spread of the Gospel (and the Gospel might just as well spread better under more hostile circumstances). 

This also means, since I am "free" from worrying about the outcome of any political election, I am now free to vote my conscience. And contra a blog post I read recently, following my personal conscience means that if I know that my plumber or dentist or whatever was sexually harassing women and bragging about it, my personal conscience would not allow me to give them business no matter how good they were. How much more so with a president? [For the record, I won't judge anybody for voting for Trump! All I'm saying is vote your conscience, especially considering the issue of Christian testimony]

Cited sources:

Schroger, Friedrich. Gemeinde im. 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverstandnis einer christilichen Gemeinde and er Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert. Katholische Theollgie 1. Passau: Passavia Univertatslag, 1981.

Williams, Travis B. "The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar in 1 Peter 2,13--Early Christian Resistance to the Emperor and His Cult." Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 104 (2014).

See also Paul A. Himes, Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter (Eugene, OR: Wipf&Stock, 2014) for further discussion of social-spiritual identity in 1 Peter (chs. 2 and 6). Click here.

"Why did Peter correct the Septuagint?" My first LXX-related article (Bulletin for Biblical Research vol. 26.2)

I have always been fascinated by the New Testament use of the Old Testament, especially when it comes to the two different text-types underlying the Apostolic authors' citation. That's right: the inspired authors had, in a sense, two different Bibles to draw from: the Hebrew MT (or proto-MT), and the Greek Septuagint. Quite often (some would say the majority of times), they drew from the translation most familiar to their audience of Diaspora Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: the Greek Septuagint.
Excursus: once again, for the doubters--we have manuscripts of the Old Testament in Greek that pre-date the incarnation, and a side-by-side comparison of many texts of the NT with the Hebrew force the assumption that they were citing something else. Paraphrase won't cut it, because there is actually different material in the Apostles' citations that does not exist in the Hebrew but does exist in Greek OT manuscripts. I'm not trying to be snarky here, and forgive me if this is a bit too harsh, but the Greek Old Testament existed before the Apostles and denying this is the theological equivalent of suggesting that the US never landed on the moon.
The role of the Septuagint within New Testament theology is currently a hot-button (and fascinating) issue, and the reader should be aware of W. Edward Glenny's fantastic new article in the on-line journal Themelios vol. 41.2 (August 2016). The article is entitled "The Septuagint and Biblical Theology" and may be read here. This article is an essential introductory resource for those interested in this discussion.
Recently I had an article published by Bulletin for Biblical Research vol. 26.2 (2016) entitled "Why Did Peter Change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the Significance of the Use of Titheimi in 1 Peter 2:6." First Peter 2:6 is one of the most fascinating instances of NT use of the OT since Peter's citation does not match either the LXX or the MT. In fact, my article is not the first to focus specifically on this verse; while my article stems from a paper I gave in 2009, in 2010 Dietrich-Alex Koch published a fascinating study (going a different direction than I did) in Zeitschrift fur Neuentestament Wissenschaft vol. 101; Koch and I are alike in that we both argue 1 Peter utilized the LXX text but altered it. Whereas Koch argues that 1 Peter 2:6 altered it to correct some awkward syntax of the LXX (and thus make the text clearer), I argue that 1 Peter changed it for lexical reasons: the Greek enballw was a sub-par lexical choice to describe the Messiah being "set" as  Cornerstone, and Titheimi was much superior for theological and discourse reasons. In fact Peter ends up creating a chiasm in verses 6-8:
***A. The Set One [titheimi] is
 *****B. honor to
 ********C. The believer
but
********C' To the unbeliever/disobedient one [textual variant here]
******B' dishonor
***A.' To those who are "set" [titheimi] for the purpose of disobedience.
This article will hold a soft spot in my heart since it's my first article since becoming a full-time professor at Baptist College of Ministry (fifth overall). Also, for some reason, BBR is my "lucky" journal in the sense that I have yet to have an article rejected by them (though this latest one had to go to a tie-breaker peer-reviewer, and involved some significant revision). For BBR I'm "2-for-2," for JETS I'm "1-3," and I have a couple other journals that I"m "1-for-1." I struggle, however, submitting journals to Tyndale Bulletin and Trinity Journal--collectively "0-for-5" for those two journals! (and Tyndale, especially, is probably the cream of the crop for Evangelical journals).
Finally, for those interested in further study of NT use of the OT in 1 Peter, pride of place will probably always belong to Dr. Karen Jobes and her work, especially her Baker Exegetical Commentary on 1 Peter and her essay "The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter" in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scripture (SBL, 2006). Also, in addition to Koch's article in ZNW, one very good article that I cited favorably is Jocelyn Williams, "A Case Study in Intertextuality: The Place of Isaiah in the 'Stone' Sayings in 1 Peter 2," Reformed Theological Review 66 (2007). Williams, like me, sees Peter as deliberately modifying the LXX for theological reasons in 1 Pet 2:6, and I build off of her work somewhat in my own article. Finally, as mentioned at the beginning, Glenny's brand-new Themelios article is a must-read for anybody interested in the topic.

Choosing a textbook for a brand new "General Epistles" class

For a two-week block at the end of September/beginning of October, I have the privilege of teaching BI 429 "Introduction and Theology of the General Epistles" (minus Hebrews). This is the first time ever Baptist College of Ministry has offered the class (it's not even in our official catalog yet), and will be an upper-level class consisting of a mid-sized research paper and some other smaller projects.

I'm immensely excited for various reasons, not least because the class will naturally include 1 Peter. Also, the general epistles are the "generally neglected" portion of the canon (when was the last time you heard a sermon on Jude, 2 Peter, or 2-3 John?) However, until just yesterday I didn't have the time to choose a textbook. Good books covering all the General Epistles are vary rare, and in the end my choices boiled down to two books: Karen Jobes Letters to the Churches or Brandon Crowe's The Message of the General Epistles in the History of Redemption.

While both books are worthy of purchase, and while Crowe has an easy-going, accessible style, I nevertheless had to go with Jobes for a couple reasons. First of all, Jobes' book is a true introduction. Whereas Crowe mostly covers theological themes, Jobes covers that and everything else (this means, however, that Crowe would be good supplementary reading at the undergrad level). Secondly, Jobes offers the reader a better introduction to the scholarly literature out there, which is what I want for my upper-level college students. Also, Jobes' book has pictures! (Any NT textbook is better with pictures! Best example of this is Burge/Cohick/Green's The New Testament in Antiquity).

One other minor note: since he teaches at Westminster, Crowe's Reformed theology does play a major role in his book. This means that it's simultaneously slightly less desirable for a Dispensational classroom but obviously an easy choice for a a Reformed one. Also, I do have to admit that Crowe's writing style is very accessible, even for non-college students, and might make a good choice for a church Bible study (even a non-Reformed Baptist church could benefit from it).

My specialty is first Peter, and I've blogged about it before, but let me quickly mention what I consider the top commentaries on 1 Peter:
1. Confessional:
Karen Jobes, Baker Exegetical--best, period, end of story.
Wayne Grudem, Tyndale--would be my pick for undergrad or a church Bible study on 1 Peter
Douglas Harink, Brazos theological--very provocative and practical!
Ben Witherington, Socio-Rhetorical--Witherington is always a good read for literary and sociological background
2. Broadly academic
Paul Achtemeier, Hermeneia--This is considered by scholarship at large to be the best ever.
John Elliott, Anchor Bible--I prefer Elliott slightly to Achtemeier, partially because I've bought into most of his argument re.: the background of the recipients.
Leonhard Goppelt, Kritisch-exegetischer--This is the foreign-language commentary to own.
Reinhard Feldmeier, Theologischer Handkommentar--A bit more accessible than Goppelt.

Some thoughts on prayer from 1 Peter

Generally I prefer to stick to discussing "academic resources" and what not, but who says academic studies can't be practical and spiritual? I recently had the privilege of preaching from 1 Peter 4:7-11 in BCM chapel, as well as teaching a 7-week course at 5pm every Sunday on 1 Peter to many church folk. One major item has stuck out to me in my recent studies: attitude impacts your prayer life!

Consider two passages. In 1 Peter 3:7, when discussing the husband's relationship to his wife, Peter exhorts men to respect/honor their wive's feminine-ness [the word there is not the normal word for "wife"], etc., lest their prayer lives be hindered. Yet the word "hinder" (both KJV and NET) is too wimpy, in my opinion, to accurately render the Greek. The word ekkoptw only occurs three times elsewhere in the NT, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 18:8, and 2 Corinthians 11:12--you can look those passages up and judge for yourself why I think "hinder" is too weak, lacking other semantic data! Thus, men, if you fail to honor/respect your wife, your prayer life will potentially be cut off! 

Secondly, take a look at 1 Peter 4:7. We are to be "self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of prayer" (NET--I agree with the NET here when it translates the preposition eis as "for the sake of"). In other words, proper mental attitude (or, perhaps, lifestyle in general?) seems to have a direct effect on prayer. Thus Wayne Grudem, in his Tyndale commentary, aptly states, "Christians who realize the end of the age could happen at any time should act in a certain way: therefore keep sane and sober for your prayers" [with the idea that this is "to assist your prayers"] (Grudem, p. 173).

In other words, attitude and/or action matters when it comes to your prayers, attitude regarding both the world around you and other people (especially one's wife!).

Review of Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter by Justin Langford

Note: I was not given this book; rather, I purchased it with my own money (like almost all of the books I review) which means I can review it any way I want, bwahahahahahhahaha!!! [JUST KIDDING! I'll try to be fair.] Also, as a personal preference, I will always have at least a little bit positive and a little bit negative to say, my reasoning being that even Bart Ehrman is a zippy read and can contribute to the discussion, while only Scripture itself is inerrant (so only Scripture would get a perfect review by me!).

Dr. Justin Langford, at the time of publication, is an adjunct NT professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. His book Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2013) seems to be a revision of his dissertation. I also had the privilege of hearing him speak at last Fall's ETS in Baltimore, and I look forward to interacting with his work on 1 Peter more in the future.

Defending Hope focuses on a branch of study known as "Semiotics" and its relation to the NT use of the OT in First Peter, especially 1 Peter's citation of Isaiah (or allusions, echoes, etc. of Isaiah). As Langford states early on, "The fundamental assumption behind intertextual study is the belief that 'no text exists in a vacuum'" [quoting Fewell, Reading between Texts] (xv). Yet Langford bemoans the fact that "no standard or agreed-upon method exists for doing such studies" [re.: "methodological applications of intertextuality"](p. xv). Consequently, Langford proposes using "semiotics" to pave the way forward. Thus, early on, he states, "The purpose of this study, then, is to explore the use of semiotics as an overarching method for doing biblical intertextual studies" (p. xvi). Soon after, he defines "semiotics" as "a broader term [compared to semiosis] referring to the scientific study of signs and sign systems" (p. xvii).

In the first chapter, Langford focuses mostly on a history of the theory and application intertextuality, eventually narrowing in on the history of intertextual studies in 1 Peter (noting also key dissertations such as Edward Glenny's discussion of NT use of the OT in 1 Peter). At the end of the chapter, he declares, "The importance of this book lies in both the application of a semiotic method for interpreting intertextual references and the treatment of Isaiah in 1 Peter" (25).In chapter 2, Langford focuses on developing a methodology for his study, stating that he will follow linguist Stefan Alkier--1. "Establishing a theory of textuality based on semiotics, 2. perform[ing] an intratextual investigation of 1 Peter, and 3. perform[ing] an intertextual investigation of the use of Isaiah in 1 Peter." Later in the chapter he focuses on the work of C. S. Peirce, Pierce's concept of "universe of discourse," and the concept of an "encyclopedia (including the role of "cultural knowledge," see p. 46).

In chapter 3, Langford focuses on "The Textual Universe of 1 Peter," which includes both the "epistolary" and "rhetorical" outlines of 1 Peter (Langford includes some helpful charts comparing various scholars). In chapter 4, "Opening the Encyclopedia of 1 Peter," Langford the social, historical, and cultural background of 1 Peter. After this, he focuses on how citations function in 1 Peter  (which texts are cited [LXX? Masoretic?], how they were cited, etc.).

Finally, in chapter 5, Langford discusses "'Signs' of Hope in 1 Peter." He (mostly convincingly, in my opinion) follows the thread of "hope" all throughout the quotations, allusions, and echoes of Isaiah in 1 Peter. He states,
      "A semiotic investigation of the use of Isaiah in 1 Peter demonstrates the integral role of the book of      
      Isaiah in the composition of the epistle. As the dynamic object, the book of Isaiah motivated the
      generation of numerous Isaianic signs in 1 Peter. The signs all point to one specific aspect of the book of
      Isaiah, their immediate object, and in doing so create an interpretant. Each interpretant was described in
      the sections above, and most of these interpretants were determined to communicate the idea of hope.
      While each interpretant communicates in its own right a picture of hope for the audience, the cumulative
      force of all the interpretants points to a message of hope, one that saturates almost every section of this
      short epistle" (p. 124; see also his excellent chart on page 125).

Now for critique: on the (very) plus side, this is a worthy addition to the panoply of scholarship on 1 Peter. Langford gives us a unique contribution (1 Peter, Isaiah, and semiotics), he delves deeply into the realm of semiotics, and artfully focuses on Isaiah in 1 Peter.

I believe that, for the most part, Langford demonstrates his thesis on hope in 1 Peter via Isaiah. Indeed, chapter 5 alone is worth the price of admission. Furthermore, Langford demonstrates excellent scholarship, interacting with almost all the major sources [with one major exception, noted below]. At an affordable price (thanks to Wipf&Stock's publishing model, of which I am also benefiting), it would be almost inexcusable for any budding scholar on 1 Peter or (more generally) NT use of the OT to not own this book. Let me stress again, this is an excellent discussion of 1 Peter's use of Isaiah.

And now for some quibbles (and please, dear reader, don't let the length of my discussion detract from the fact that this is a mostly positive review, and you should buy this book if you're serious about researching 1 Peter). First of all, I felt that for what the author was trying to accomplish this book was way too short. We do not see near enough discussion of the concept of hope in Scripture in general (what I feel would be a necessary precursor to discussing hope in both Isaiah and 1 Peter; however, Langford does clearly know the difference between concept and word, and he does discuss the concept of hope in the relevant chapters; I just think he could have done more, including a more clear definition of hope), and we do not enough discussion of the original contexts of the various Isaiah passages. I think this book would have benefited from another 50 pages (and yes, I know what it's like to have to add material to a book, so this is not just an armchair quarterback speaking!). In addition, I felt Langford could have segued into a more comprehensive "theology of hope" in 1 Peter.

Secondly, there is already an entire article devoted to the concept of "hope" in 1 Peter, and Langford does not cite it (John Piper's "Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9-12" on NTS vol. 26); now I know, I know, it's easy to nitpick and always find some obscure source that an author doesn't cite (I anticipate this if anybody reviews my own book on 1 Peter), and, to be fair, Piper does not focus on any of the passages that Langford focuses on (see Piper's article here). Nevertheless, I feel there is enough overlap in topics for at least a mention--after all, the whole point of the book is to provide an intertextual discussion of hope in 1 Peter, and New Testament Studies is a major, top-tier journal.

Thirdly, occasionally the author hurries over a statement that should need much more explanation, or at least a footnote. For example, on page 95, he states, "the formula pistos o logos . . . found in 1-2 Timothy and Titus reflects a phrase found in the Qumran Book of Mysteries that refers to a prophecy." Even without the controversial assertion "reflects a phrase . . ." I would expect a footnote for this (the only footnote in the paragraph is at the very first sentence). Another example: the whole socio-political situation of the recipients (metaphorical? literal? both?) of 1 Peter deserves more than the one paragraph he allocates on page 90 (if I'm missing something, I apologize, but that's all I saw in a thorough reading of the book), especially since this ties directly into the necessity of hope.

Finally, a complaint that is not unique to Langford's book: Scholarly, technical books need indexes!!!!!! Please let me repeat that: scholarly, technical books need at least a subject index and a Scripture/ancient sources index! This should not be optional! (but, as I said, a lot of books coming out these days, including revised dissertations, sadly do not have any).

In conclusion, though, let me state Langford's Defending Hope  is an excellent book on 1 Peter. It gives us an excellent introduction to semiotics, a decent discussion of intertextuality, and a fantastic overview of the concept of hope weaved throughout 1 Peter's use of Isaiah. Let me emphasize again, concerning the last point, Langford succeeds masterfully, and may my critique not detract from my praise.

I did not receive this book in exchange for a review; I purchased it with my own money, and it is well worth the price!

Book Alert! First Peter, Calvinism, and a Christian Autobiography

 Here’s some fairly recent books that my readers might be interested in.

Becky Lynn Black, My Life Story (Gonzalez, Florida.: Energion, 2014)

First off, lets step away from the strictly academic and focus on the practical and spiritually beneficial (not that “academic” and “spiritual” are necessarily mutually exclusive!) My Life Story, by Becky Lynn Black, is a blessing and a challenge to read. Mrs. Black was the wife of my doctoral advisor Dr. David Alan Black, and she recently pass away after a difficult struggle with cancer.

Mrs. Black is a missionary kid from Ethiopia with quite an interesting life story of ministry and struggle (by the way, the book includes full-color photos of ministry in Ethiopia, something which automatically elevates the “fun-factor” of any book, in my humble opinion!)  The book is a quick and enjoyable read (I finished it easily in a day, despite having to work), and the frequent pictures are a great bonus. The book is not meant to be an extensive autobiography, but more of a spiritual testimony. It is very exhortational and meant to challenge the reader. Thus chapter 9, for example, deals with the various “myths” that Christians are tempted to believe, myths that Mrs. Black herself had to deal with (e.g., the myth of the “Checklist Methodology that ‘Guarantees’ Positive Results”). Chapter 10, especially, is an important chapter since it provides us with a window into the very real struggle of a Christian dealing with terminal cancer (the last chapter, I believe, was written mere months before Mrs. Black passed away). Thus, although it is a quick read, it is not an “easy” read, nor is it meant to be. Ultimately this is a book that demonstrates the reality of Christian life, both struggles and joys, while challenging the reader to simply trust in Christ throughout it all.

Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, eds. E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2008).

 Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue provides the reader with an important conversation between Southern Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists, ultimately demonstrating (I hope!) that there is room for both sides within the convention. Various sections showcase the two sides of such issues as the role of Calvinism/non-Calvinism [seriously, we gotta get a better phrase to describe the latter, but rare is the SBC member who wants to be called “Arminian”] in SBC history, the doctrine of election, limited vs. unlimited atonement, etc., as well as concluding with a discussion of how both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can work together within the SBC’s mission.

Some of the essays are better written than others (and no, it has nothing to do with the particular author’s theological position!), and a couple of the essays come across as a bit too “preachy” in their presentation of their particular side, but overall I believe the book serves its purpose.  Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have a place within the SBC, and both can contribute to the Great Commission. This is hardly the book that will convince somebody to change sides (or whatever), but if it causes somebody to be less harsh and more humble in the debate, than it has served its purpose. Personally, I wish somebody would write a book like this for my own Independent Baptist brothers and sisters, since we also tend to look down on those who disagree with our soteriological position, and we can definitely be guilty of creating strawmen and overacting (one of the few genuine independent Baptist scholars, Dr. Kevin Bauder, once said in a class I was in that “The problem with Fundamentalism is the shrill Arminians and the snooty Calvinists”; J ).

Two books on 1 Peter

Although I noticed it too late to include in my own published dissertation, I recently purchased and am looking forward to reading Justin Langford’s Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf&Stock, 2013). I was able to hear Dr. Langford (adjunct prof. in NT at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary) present a paper on this topic at 2013’s ETS meeting in Baltimore, and shortly thereafter I ordered a copy of his book (Wipf&Stock published dissertations are a significantly more affordable than others! My own dissertation is being published by the company’s Pickwick imprint). Langford basically looks at OT citation in 1 Peter, especially the Isaiah quotations, through the lens of “Semitics” (or the study of “signs” within the context of linguistics). This should be a helpful book to those interested in NT use of the OT within the general epistles; I'm hoping to do a full book review later.

Finally, once again too late to be used in my own book, we have a new collection of essays on 1 Peter entitled Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes, edited by David S. du Toit (Beihefte zur Zeitschrfit für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 200; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013). The title roughly translates to Distress and Identity: Studies in the Situation, Communication, and Theology of 1 Peter. This tome, written in memorium of the great Leonhard Goppelt, contains essays by many of 1 Peter’s top scholars, including Karen H. Jobes (“Foreigners and Exiles: Was 1 Peter Written to Roman Colonists?”), Reinhard Feldmeier, (“Basis des Kontaktes unter Christen: Demut als Schlüsselbegriff der Ethik des Ersten Petrubbriefes”/ trans. “The Basis of Contact among Christians: Humility as the Key Concept of the Ethics of 1 Peter”), and David G. Horrell (“Das im Unglauben verharrende Judenvolk: 1 Peter 2:4-10, Its History of Interpretation in Germany (1855-1978), and the Important Contribution of Leonhard Goppelt”). For my personal research at this point, I am also hoping to study the essays by Lutz Doering on the significance of “Israel” in 1 Peter and Thomas Popp on the “Theology of Recognition” (i.e., in regard to the “elect strangers” of 1 Peter 1:1).

The book some of us have been waiting for: review of The Life and Witness of Peter by Larry R. Helyer.

Throw a rock and you can hit a dozen Pauline theologies. I’m not denigrating the importance of the Apostle Paul’s theology, mind you! The man wrote a significant portion of the New Testament, and his inspired letters deserve the attention they get. Nevertheless, for those of us interested in Peter and his theology, there has been a significant dearth of scholarship. There is, of course, Martin Hengel’s Peter: The Underestimated Apostle as well as Markus Bockmuehl’s Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church, both significant books. Yet with Larry R. Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), we have a rare Petrine theology that also gives key consideration to Peter’s life and treatment in the early church. Its significance, in my opinion, can be summed up this way: I desperately wish to teach a class on Petrine theology (at any level!), and without a doubt this is the textbook I would use (and, in my opinion, it’s well-written enough that it could easily be used at the college level as well as in a grad class).

Summary

In the preface, Helyer gives a very brief overview as to his methodology and major focuses (after, of course, the obligatory comments on the relative neglect of Petrine scholarship!) Helyer makes it clear that he will focus on the material from Acts in addition to 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in my opinion one of the major strengths of the book). He will also utilize Mark as a source for a general understanding of Peter’s personal background, and consideration will also be given to some post-NT material, Patristic and otherwise. Especially significant for the content of this book is Helyer’s statement on p. 17 that “The overarching rubric that encapsulates Peter’s theology is the meaning and significance of the cross which shapes Peter’s first pastoral letter.”

Chapter 1 deals with the ‘Background of Simon Peter.” Here Helyer provides a brief discussion of Peter’s name and occupation, providing in the process a beneficial overview of the fishing industry in 1^st century Galilee (complete with his own culinary recommendation footnote 35, namely that visitors to the area try the type of tilapia called “Saint Peter’s Fish,” fresh from the Sea of Galilee!). Helyer takes an unapologetic “harmonistic approach” when recreating Peter’s life and background from the Gospels, though he acknowledges the value of both redaction and narrative approaches (p. 30).

Chapters 2 and 3 deals with Peter’s appearances in the four Gospels. Naturally, Helyer devotes considerable space to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels), as well as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Peter. Especially significant is the way in which Helyer ties events in the Gospels to Peter’s later ministry, noting its significance for our spiritual development today. On page 61, for example, he writes (regarding Peter’s three-fold denial), “Peter’s denial can never be taken back. It happened, and he had to live with the painful memory. But rather than letting his failure cripple him spiritually and emotionally, he used it as a means of building up the flock of God. . . . He becomes a living illustration of forgiveness and a second chance. He possesses a degree of compassion and understanding for wavering believers that others, sometimes rather self-righteously, are incapable of showing. We hear a tenderness in Peter’s first epistle that springs out of a bitterly disappointing failure in his own life (1 Peter 5:1-11).”

Chapter 4 deals with “Peter and the early church,” focusing on the book of Acts, while chapter 5 deals with the mention of Peter within Paul’s own epistles. Chapters 6-10 then basically represent a theology of 1 Peter, focusing on that epistle and its key themes. Chapter 6 functions more-or-less as a traditional introduction to the letter, focusing on authorship, genre, recipients, etc. I was especially glad to see Helyer giving due consideration to Karen Jobes’ thesis regarding the recipients, and also that Helyer concludes on p. 116 that the letter uses the concept “stranger” in both a literal and a metaphorical sense (with which I agree, though, like John Elliott, I prefer an initial focus on a literal sense, as I argue in my soon-to-be-published dissertation; it is from the literal that the metaphorical draws its force). Chapters 7-10 then discuss, in order, “Peter’s Christology,” “Christ and the Spirits, Christ and the Holy Spirit,” “Suffering for Jesus,” and “The People of God.”

Chapter 11 functions as an introduction to 2 Peter while chapter 12 deals with its theology. Chapter 13 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s treatment of false teachers, and chapter 14 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s eschatology. At this point, I need to mention one statement by Helyer that I greatly appreciated (and one that needs to be preached!): “Many Christians labor under a misunderstanding about their ultimate destiny. They conceive of their eternal state in ethereal (otherworldy0 terms situated in a celestial city ‘up there somewhere.’ The truth is our final destination is on a new earth. In short, ‘heaven’ comes down and does more than ‘fill my soul’; it takes up residence on this planet and fills the whole world with God’s glory” (p. 269).

Finally, Helyer devotes 3 chapters to “The Rest of the Story,” where he focuses on non-canonical treatments of Peter himself, including Patristic accounts of Peter’s life and death, pseudonymous works on Peter, and (in the final chapter), the “legacy” of Peter which concludes with Helyer’s “top ten contributions of the apostle Peter to NT theology.”

Analysis

In my opinion, Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter represents both a significant contribution that fills in a gap in scholarship (the relative lack of work on Petrine theology) as well as a very readable and enjoyable treatment of Peter, his life, and his theology. While I will have a couple minor issues, I can definitely recommend this book for anybody interested in either Peter or biblical theology, or both.

First of all, does Helyer make an important contribution to biblical theology? In my opinion, absolutely. Treatments of this scope on Petrine theology are very rare, and Helyer does an excellent job of plugging that hole in scholarship (from an evangelical perspective, as well).

Secondly, Helyer is a good writer; without sacrificing its contribution to scholarship, The Life and Witness of Peter is both an easy and an enjoyable read. It’s worth pointing out that his Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period is a much more enjoyable read than equivalent books at this level of academia (I’m not claiming it’s necessarily better at the scholarly level than equivalent books, simply that it’s more enjoyable).

Thirdly, I like how Helyer does biblical theology. Rather than approaching the texts with set themes and topics, as I’ve seen some works do, Helyer mostly lets the texts themselves determine the themes. This is why, for example, we see an entire chapter on “The People of God” in 1 Peter but not 2 Peter, whereas we see an entire chapter on 2 Peter’s eschatology but not 1 Peter’s eschatology. Not because 1 Peter does not discuss eschatology, nor that 2 Peter does not concern itself at all with the church, but rather because each book of the Bible has its own emphasis and focus. In my opinion, biblical theology is at its best when it lets each distinct book bring out its own theology rather than approaching each book with a “grid” of theological topics. In other words, when doing biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology), the question is not “What does [insert name of book] say about God, Jesus, the end times, etc.?” but rather, “What themes does this book explore, and how are they developed?” This, in my opinion, is what Helyer does well. Having said that, I do wish Helyer had provided a bit more  interaction between books on certain themes. Chapter 8, for example, could have dealt with the Spirit and the spirits in both 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in light of 2 Peter 1:21 and 2:4, 11), and I would have appreciated it bit more overview of Peter’s theology as a whole (although the final chapter covers that a little). Nevertheless, overall I am in favor of how Helyer handles Peter’s theology. In addition, I greatly appreciate how Helyer covers all the Petrine material in Scripture, not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter. This, in my opinion, is key to developing a true Petrine theology (as opposed to just a theology of 1 Peter or a theology of 2 Peter). Such an approach makes this book extremely valuable.

Fourthly, one of Helyer’s strengths is his knowledge of Second Temple Literature (he wrote an entire book on it) and how this knowledge contributes to The Life and Witness of peter. Numerous examples can be cited, but I’ll point especially to page 44 (what does it mean to “loose” and “bind” in Matthew 16:19? He provides some discussion of close terminology in the Qumran texts and the Mishnah) and p. 251 (2 Pet 2:4’s remarkably close parallel to 1 Enoch).

Fifthly, Helyer does an excellent job at making his work relevant for the Christian community. In other words, The Life and Witness of Peter is meant to be relevant theologically in the everyday life of Christians (e.g., see the quote above from page 61). Having said that, I did scratch my head at his odd sort-of allegorizing of the story of Peter in the boat from Matthew 14 (see p. 39).

A couple mild critiques. First of all, while this book does well to cover introductory matters, students should not rely on it for the best treatment of such topics as authorship, recipients, etc.. For example, although I like what he does with his treatment of the recipients of 1 Peter, he never mentions Moses Chin’s article “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless” in Tyndale Bulletin vol. 42:1 (1991), a significant and influential article (though I disagree with much of it). Similarly, there are some gaps in scholarship; when discussing both the eschatology and the false teachers of 2 Peter, for example, he never mentions two articles that directly deal with these issues: Gene L. Green, “‘As for Prophecies, They Will Come to an End’” in JSNT vol. 8 (2001) and Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL vol. 99 (September 1980), although he cites other sources by these two scholars. Having said that, I must express my gratefulness that he mentions a little-known article by yours-truly on Peter, an article significantly less important than the contributions by Chin, Green, and Neyrey, so who am I to complain?

Two more points. Even though this book is meant to be accessible to all levels, it still would have greatly benefited from a “survey of scholarship” on Peter and his theology. Secondly, I’m puzzled as to why the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter receives only a two-paragraph treatment (pp. 246-247), especially since this would seem to be relevant to 2 Peter’s theology.

Nevertheless, these moderate critiques should not diminish the value that Helyer’s Life and Witness of Peter provides. This is an essential book for studying both Peter and his theology, and one that I hope to use as a textbook someday.