The New Testament Letters of Peter and the Challenge of Biblical Interpretation

Ancient manuscript
containing parts of 1 Peter 2

This morning, a bit of musing. This post takes up the question of the relationship between the letters known as First and Second Peter. From there, it highlights a few aspects of biblical interpretation.

So, what is the connection between First and Second Peter? It might not be as strong as we might imagine.

2 Peter 3:1 begins with these words: "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." From there, it's a short step to the following conclusion: The Apostle Peter wrote two letters. First, he wrote First Peter. Later, he wrote Second Peter. Not only that, in this verse, he refers to the first letter when writing the second letter. But is it that simple? A few points to consider:

1. In 1 Peter 1:1, the author identifies himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." In 2 Peter 1:1, the signature is slightly different, "Simon [actually, Simeon] Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." This is a very rare occurrence of Simeon as a reference to the man we sometimes call Simon Peter. Only one other time is he called Simeon, and that's in Acts 15:14, when James, the brother of the Lord, calls him that. If Peter called himself that, then this is the only example we have.

2. The recipients of these two letters are addressed differently:

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1b)

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours (2 Peter 1:1b).

The first verses of each letter suggest something different. Whereas the beginning of First Peter is quite specific, the beginning of Second Peter is general. So there is a bit of tension with the view that 2 Peter 3:1 points to the recipients of the first letter.

3. When the author of Second Peter announces the purpose of both letters he has written, the themes do not match up very well with the ones we find in 1 Peter. Here is what the author says in 2 Peter 3:1-4:

I have written both [letters] as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

These verses do not raise anything like an absolute inconsistency. But they do seem a bit skewed. The two letter we have in the New Testament bearing the name of Peter are not that much alike.

So here I want to ask: When the author of Second Peter says this is his second letter (2 Peter 3:1), was the previous letter the one we call First Peter? If the answer we gave was "No," would the situation be unprecedented? 

You might remember that in 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to an earlier piece of correspondence that is not longer available to us. It appears, then, that what we call First Corinthians is, at best, Second Corinthians. So, is it possible that the first letter referred to in 2 Peter 3:1 is not First Peter? It is certainly possible. Is it probable? That question is difficult to answer.

Now, what is the upshot of all of this probing and questioning?

1. At the very least, we should say that First and Second Peter must be read and understood on their own terms. In other words, First Peter should not be read as the first half of The Letters of Peter. And, Second Peter should not be approached as a continuation of First Peter, a sort of First Peter, Part II.

2. We also conclude that there are some things we just don't understand. Or, if we really do understand them, our conclusion will not necessarily command the assent or agreement of everyone else. There is a real distance between us and the texts we find in the Bible, and treating that distance as though it isn't there is not wise.

3. Wrestling with such questions reminds us that although the books of the Bible were written for us, they were not written to us. If they were written to us, they would not be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They would be in English. (See the photo above. The fragment was part of an ancient copy of First Peter). We are not in the same position as those who wrote and first read the books of the Bible. This is true not only of the broad, general context of the Bible, it is also true of the specific context of the Bible. For example, consider the challenge of interpreting a letter. Imagine that you went for a walk and found a letter that read as follows:

Dear Jim,

We are hoping Joe will be released by the weekend. Mollie can hardly wait. The old gang is planning the usual party at Charlie's place. Please bring Tracy. See you there, Peggy.

The reader of this letter will likely have many, many questions:

• Who is Jim?
• Joe has been scheduled to be released. Is he in the county jail, a maximum security prison, the hospital, a psychiatric ward, the military?
• Who is Molly? Why is it that she can hardly wait for Joe to be released? 
• Who is Peggy?
• Who is the "the old gang"?
• Who is Charlie? What and where is his place? Is the reference to Charlie's house? His tavern?
• What's going to happen when "the old gang" meets once again at Charlie's place?

The list of questions goes on and on. And it's very short letter. Of course, Peggy and Jim know all the answers to all of these questions. They don't need a commentary on the text of the letter. To them, writing a set of comments on this letter would not only be unnecessary, it would be weird.

Yet, even when we do our best to retrieve all of the information we'd like to have in order to understand the books of the New Testament, including the letters, we sometimes come to a point where we have to say "I don't know."

At the very same time, we enter the study of Scripture with the expectation that God can and will speak to us, that the Lord will reveal to us his will for our lives so that our faith will be informed and rekindled, so that we will be encouraged and filled with hope. It's a bit of a paradox isn't it? There is so much we do not know. There are only a few things we absolutely must know.

Note: I first wrote this post while reading several works on the Letters of Peter written by a variety of New Testament scholars. I do not now remember who all I was reading then. So I am unable to cite my sources here.

Add to Your Faith! A Message from 2nd Peter 1

Tucked away in 2 Peter chapter 1 is a great passage that deals mainly with two things: what God has done for his people, and what he expects his people to do in response.

Peter begins the letter by reminding his Christian readers of what God has done for us. By exerting his "divine power," the Lord has given us "everything we need for life and godliness." By sending Christ, who was crucified for our sins and raised by the power of the Spirit for our justification, the Father has provided the way through which we can receive everything that we really need. Christians have joy and confidence because we know the one who has "called us by his own glory and goodness" (1:3).

Also, by calling us and allowing us to know him, God has extended to his people "very great and precious promises." Such gifts are not an end in themselves. They are meant to enable us to “participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world" (1:4). To put it another way, the promises of God draw us closer to him and encourage us to live lives in which we become holy, even as God is holy (Leviticus 20:7-8; 1 Peter 1:15-16). By living this way, we are set free from the destructive power of a sinful lifestyle so that we can fulfill our one great purpose of bringing glory and honor to God. This leads directly into a discussion of the human response to divine grace.

Beginning with verse 5, Peter turns from his description of God’s grace to the responsibilities of God’s people. We are to give “all diligence” (KJV) or “make every effort” (NIV) to “add” certain qualities to the foundation of our faith. There’s hardly a good way to translate the Greek word for “add,” which actually means “to provide at one's own expense.” The term highlights the idea of personal effort and sacrifice. The language suggests that although adding to your faith is worthwhile, it is not always easy. Consider each item that Christians are to have or to add:

Faith refers to our loyalty to God as well as our trust in him. It is mentioned first in the list because without faith we cannot even begin to please God (Hebrews 11:6). But on the basis of faith, we can obey and live for God. It is in this sense that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Faith is the victory that overcomes the world (1 John 5:4).

Goodness carries the idea of "moral excellence" in the broadest sense of that expression. Because the Greek term here is so very general, the King James translators chose the word "virtue." Like their Lord, the followers of Jesus Christ should be known as people who do go about doing good things (Acts 10:37-38).

Knowledge supplies a Christian what he or she must have in order to make moral choices and doctrinal decisions. It is only upon the basis of knowledge that Christians can “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21) or “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1-3).

Self-control is the virtue that enables a Christian to resist temptation and closely follow the footsteps of Jesus. Developing this trait requires a person to rise above our environment. To be self-controlled runs against the grain of a society that practically worships unsuppressed action and the breaking down of inhibitions. But people who want to please God will work at strengthening the muscles of restraint so that they can act as they should.

Perseverance is translated from a word whose verb form means "to remain under." From this we gather that to persevere is to willingly remain under a heavy load you'd rather not carry. In this sense, the call for patience is similar to our expression, "Stick to it" or "Stay with it." Far too many families and churches are plagued by a lack of loyalty, an unwilling attitude in the face of those inevitable conflicts. The gospel has something to say to people who are prone to give up. It says, “Stick to it, and learn to patiently endure whatever you must for the sake of the kingdom of God!” (compare Hebrews 12:1-3).

Godliness refers to a right attitude towards God which leads to the right actions towards God's creation. Whenever we gratefully acknowledge the Almighty as the maker and sustainer of everything, we develop a sense of how we should treat other people, who bear the likeness and image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, James 3:7-10, and 1 John 4:20).

Brotherly kindness initially speaks of the warmth and affection that should be found in every family, but especially in the church, the family of God. According to Peter's first letter, sincere love for our brothers and sisters in the Lord is a by-product of our obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:22).

Love is mentioned last. Why? Because love is the single quality that encompasses and supports all the others. Love is the capstone quality of the Christian life. It is what makes our abilities and sacrifices worth something in the eyes of God (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

So what do you need to add?

Ecclesiates: How It Works, What It Says

It's been a long while since I've written anything about Ecclesiastes. In previous posts, I discussed the book's setting in the leadership structure of ancient Israel, and also the title of the book. But now I want to get around to talking about how Ecclesiastes works, what it's actually saying and how. What follows is a short overview of my take. See what you think:

1. Unlike the practical wisdom book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes is an example of reflective, speculative wisdom. Instead of asking about how to live one’s life, this book asks about the meaning of life. The one other Old Testament book in the speculative-wisdom category is Job.

2. Ecclesiastes explores a specific question: What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? (1:3 NIV). I take this to mean something like: What is the point of a life well lived, a life characterized by productive work? Is there a lasting benefit? What aspect of ourselves will survive death and the ravages of time? As one would expect, since this question serves as the program for Ecclesiastes, the author repeats it several times. (See, for example, 2:22, 3:9, 5:16, and 6:8).

3. In response to his own question, the author of Ecclesiastes offers an initial, standard answer, which sounds hopeless and bleak: "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (1:2). For the time being, I'll stay away from the question of what is the best English word for the Hebrew hebel, translated "Meaningless" here. Whatever the right word is, it's important to note that Ecclesiastes often repeats this first, most-basic conclusion announcing the enigma or futility of the search for significance in life. (See, for example, 1:14; 2:1 and 11, etc.). The book ends in 12:8 in much the same way as it began in 1:2. Connected to his general conclusion is the author’s frequent observation that the pursuits of human life amount to a chasing after the wind (1:14, 17, 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16 ).

4. The author’s experiences and observations have led him to his pessimistic conclusion. A few examples:

• Famously (or infamously) the author appears to be agnostic about life beyond the grave: Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? (3:21).
• He denies that anyone can predict the future with any kind of accuracy: a man cannot discover anything about his future (7:14).
• He insists that the search for ironclad, surefire wisdom is also futile: Whatever wisdom may be, it is far away and most profound – who can discover it? (7:24).
• Sorting out what seems to be clear and well-known is apparently an impossible task. "Who knows the explanation of things? asks the wise man" (8:1). No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it (8:17).

5. So at one level, the human quest for meaning and significance meets with failure and frustration. However, Ecclesiastes is not entirely pessimistic about the possibility of joy and contentment. The author includes a series of passages that use phrases like find satisfaction and be happy and enjoy in a positive way. Ecclesiastes introduces this series with the words "nothing better" (2:24-25, 3:12-13, 3:22, 5:18-20, 8:15, and 9:7-10). When reading these passages, one notices that the sequence moves from (a) observation to (b) commendation to (c) the final imperative of 9:7-10, which strikes me as a high point of the book.

Here, the legitimate enjoyment of good things is brought within the circle of God's will for humanity. This is the single most important contribution that Ecclesiastes makes to the biblical witness: that taking pleasure, today, in your work, in good food and drink, and in your family, is not only approved by the Almighty. In fact, happiness and joy are an important aspect of the revealed will of God for human life.

Does this look convincing? What are some of your own thoughts and reactions to Ecclesiastes?

Note about Study and Sources:

At different times over the last 20 years, I've taken a series of runs at Ecclesiastes. One time I read it almost every night for about a month. When it comes to really getting a handle on a particular book of the Bible, or any text for that matter, there's just no substitute for careful, repeated, sometimes-slow reading. Anyone who's tried this knows exactly what I mean. There are some books that probably should be read in a hurry. But a book like Ecclesiastes is deserving of meditation. In addition to reading Ecclesiastes, I've spent some time with a few of its better interpreters. Two authors in particular have helped me to get a handle on this book: the late, great Robert Gordis, and an Old Testament specialist from the current generation, Graham S. Ogden.

The Meaning of Shutter Island

Okay, so the other night Michele and I watched the movie Shutter Island. Maybe you've seen it. If not, you probably saw the promos. The film was released back in February of this year. It was directed by the legendary Martin Scorsese and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor who routinely turns in great performances, with no exception here.

Afterwards, I went to see some of the online discussion. What I found was a big disappointment. Not that I went looking for very long, but of the reviews I did come across none of them talked about the political dimension of this film. Why not? (spoiler alert!)

For those who haven't (yet) seen this movie, here's one reviewer's quick take on how it begins: Two U.S. marshals, Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule, are summoned to a remote and barren island off the coast of Massachusetts to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a murderess from the island’s fortress-like hospital for the criminally insane.

As the story unfolds, viewers encounter a common narrative device: the difference between perception and reality. Things aren't as they seem, which raises the challenge of distinguishing the two.

But here's what I found really strange about most of the interpretations and reviews that I read about this movie. To a one, they all considered Shutter Island a psychological study of the main character. I saw it much more as a political allegory.

Why? Well, for one thing, at least three characters on Shutter Island make references to things like atomic weapons and the House Un-American Activities Committee. Not to mention that at an earlier time in his life, the main character had been one of the American soldiers who liberated the concentration camp at Dachau. Several other related parts of Shutter Island convinced me that this story isn't so much a "psychological thriller" about Teddy Daniels, the main character. Instead, it's more like a parable about the craze-inducing responsibility of being the United States of America, the world's superpower.

For example, why is it significant that the main character was a U.S. soldier in WWII, one who liberated a death camp no less? Sounds like American guilt to me. . . . Sure we got involved in the War. But that was only after Pearl Harbor dragged us in kicking and screaming. By then it was way too late for millions of European Jews. And it wasn't like we hadn't heard news about their plight. We just didn't want to believe it.

The good news, of course, is that we--the good guys with right on our side--successfully ended the war, . . . by dropping atomic bombs on two cities. But we would make up for any sins of omission or commission, we told ourselves. Or at least we could prevent those sorts of ugly things from happening again. How? By becoming vigilant. So vigilant, in fact, that at one point in the 1950s we were more than ready to see a Communist behind every tree. Of course, almost all of these people protested that they weren't Communists. But what would you expect them to say?

At the end of the film, Teddy Daniels, the DiCaprio character with a history he barely knows, has a question: Which would be worse? To live as a monster, or die as a good man? That's the question that won't leave the U.S. alone. Even when America exercises its power with the best of intentions--and our intentions are never so pure as that--it's not uncommon for many thousands of people inside and outside this country to experience our actions as nothing short of monstrous. The movie insinuates that if your American patriotism reacts with thoughts like: "But what about our commitment to international freedom and liberty?" and "What about all of the good that we do?" then you're Teddy Daniels, the man who knows only one part of his story, only one side of his identity.

But what other alternative is there, except for the monster to cease to exist? The ending of the movie insinuates that that is exactly what will happen in the future. The moral order, the law of sowing and reaping will eventually neutralize the United States.

Did anyone else see the film this way? Or should I be committed to the island?

More From Alexander Campbell's Lectures

I'm taking my time reading through Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch. A few highlights from numbers V and VI:

In Lecture V, Alexander Campbell speaks to the men at Bethany College about the superiority of man, and the wonderful wisdom and goodness of the Creator, as manifested in the closing acts of his six days' labor (pp. 89-90).

"Trinity" Used in the Sense of Three-ness

In an earlier post, I mentioned AC's aversion to theorizing and, thus, the unlikeliness of his using the term "Trinity." However, he does speak of God's triune character (90), and he does believe that the plural pronouns of the creation account refer to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. He even speaks of their plurality (or three-ness) as the trinity (90).

Man's Superiority as a Moral Creature

The superiority of man is strikingly developed by comparison. Wonderful and grand are the qualities that distinguish man from all things else; for there is no creature beside man, on the face of the earth, capable of being inducted into the conception of a moral idea. You may impart different kind of instruction to animals . . . . but you can never communicate to any animal the idea of moral obligation (91). So far, I've come across nothing that even begins to sound like the depravity of man. The anthropology is high. Adam was the universe in miniature. He is not only the pinnacle of Creation, he's way up there.

"Soul" and "Spirit"

It may be enough for us to know, that there is an animalism in the soul of man, but that there is none in his spirit. The spirit of man is the glory of man, and the special emanation from God (92-93).

Necessity of Knowledge

And we claim, that if a man would enjoy himself perfectly, that is, if he would derive all the pleasure possible from the healthy exercise of all his faculties, he must possess a complete knowledge of his mental and physical, moral and spiritual constitution and character, together with his surrounding circumstances. Such knowledge will not only comprehend the whole outward and inward man, but it will radiate, and lead off the inquiring and ever active mind, into all the branches of material and social science (95).

The Week Has No Type in Nature

In Lecture VI, Campbell begins by emphasizing the uniqueness of the week as a measure of time: This ordinance of time, depends entirely upon absolute will for its origin. The cessation of the creative labors of God on the seventh day, gave rise to this division of time; for which there is no type in nature. There is a type, or some symbolic mark, for every cardinal institution of the divine economy, except the week, and that has none. . . . . The week culminated in the seventh day--at the end of creation of the world--and that being a day of rest for man, is commemorative of God's ceasing to create, and the term rest is disposed of, on the ground that it is simply a figurative expression, so far as God is concerned, signifying, merely, that he ceased to act at the end of the week, but by no means indicates that the Almightly stopped to rest--to recover from the exhaustion of labor (96-97).

Uniqueness of the Fourth Commandment/Sabbath Remembrance Forever

Keeping this subject-matter under consideration, we invite attention to another remarkable fact, bearing upon this interesting question. It is this : Every one of the ten commandments begins with the phrase, " Thou shalt" or " shalt not" do this or that, except the fourth, and that begins with, " Remember." This is quite peculiar, and its significance is worthy of notice. Why this variation in the form of expression, as introduced at this particular command ? May we not presume or affirm, that it is because the Author had in his mind the fact that there is one day above all others in importance ? It was of extraordinary regard, because God had ceased to work on that day, and for this reason man is especially commanded to "remember" (always) " the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." On that day of days, God terminated the creation of the heavens and the earth, and retired into the solitude of his own infinity. Out of respect for this great truth, this important event, it was meet that man should cease to work on the same day, for the purpose of commemorating the great termination. (98). So, does Campbell believe that the Sabbath is to be remembered always, or not? Would he make a distinction between remembrance and observance? Interesting. And what a blessing to get to hear him "speaking" in this book.

Alexander Campbell on Genesis 1-3

In Lectures III and IV of Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch, Alexander Campbell comments on different parts of the first three chapters of Genesis. Lecture IV is, more specifically, about the first Adam and the last Adam, Jesus Christ. Here are some of the highlights:

Study hard to read well

Convinced of the unique quality and character of the Bible, Campbell asserts that it requires more and better learning to read a chapter of Holy Writ, as it should be read, than to read one of Cicero's orations; or that in European colleges honors are awarded to the best readers. We find much in the sacred volume that appears very simple to undeveloped minds, but it grows in value and importance as men become riper in years and understanding. It often requires hours of study to enable us to read a verse or chapter in the Bible as it should be pronounced (p. 75). I'm not convinced that many readers at church put in "hours of study" beforehand. A few minutes of study and practice would have improved some of the readings I've heard.

The serpent showed up as a human

For reasons that I don't completely understand, Campbell seems intent on the interpretation that the serpent of Genesis 3 actually showed up in human form: In the third chapter, the serpent is presented for our consideration. We call him serpent, as Moses did, but we presume that was not his name originally. The word serpent means creeper. He fell into this condition because of the deception he practiced upon the inhabitants of the garden. I presume he was originally very like man. I do not mean man as he is at present, but as he was originally. Men have become greatly humanized, and in this, our day, some are to be found scarcely distinguishable from the lower animals (78-79). . . . I entertain no doubt that the serpent was incarnated in the human form (80).

God's gracious protection of sinners

In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve became the first sinners, they were driven from the Garden of Eden and prevented from eating of the tree of life. What Campbell gathers from this is that God expelled Adam from the garden, lest he should eat the fruit of the tree of life, and become immortal in misery, with no hope of changing or dying. Therefore, like all the acts of the All-wise and Beneficent Creator in dealing with man, it was gracious (82-83). That's a common approach to the passage, which makes perfect sense. I quote it here simply because I love Campbell's expression.

"Let us" in Genesis 1:26-27

In this connection, keeping in mind the form "let us," it will be well to observe, the peculiar and characteristic style of the language employed, which clearly indicates plurality; the doctrine and existence of three persons in the Godhead (84-85). Campbell did not accept all aspects of Trinitiarianism; which is not to say that he didn't accept the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He did. But I suspect that he didn't use the term "Trinity" in a positive way, and that he didn't because it is not a biblical word.

Sexy Scripture: Introducing the Song of Songs with Questions and Answers

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is more delightful than wine. --Song of Songs 1:2

"The Song of Songs"? I thought the title of this book was "The Song of Solomon. "

Actually the full title is, "The Song of Songs which is to Solomon" (1:1). The elaborate frontispiece shown here contains those words in Hebrew. "Song of Songs" is a typical Hebrew expression, much like "lord of lords" or "king of kings." This is the Hebrew way of saying, "the greatest __________." For example, "the holy of holies" means "the most holy place." So the title "Song of Songs" means something like, "The Greatest Song."

But doesn't the first verse identify Solomon as the author?

The expression at the end of verse 1, "to Solomon" can be translated in any number of different ways. "In the style of Solomon" and "for Solomon," are just two possibilities. At any rate, this expression, which serves as the title for the book, does not necessarily indicate that Solomon wrote it, although it might. Solomon may not have been the author. However, he is connected to the book in some way (1:5; 3:9-11; 8:11-12).

This book seems to be a collection of love poetry, and it never even mentions God. What's a book like this doing in the Bible?

Without a doubt, the discreet eroticism of the Song has raised the eyebrows of many a believer. This, along with its neglect of such topics and themes as Israel, God, the Torah, etc., has caused many people to treat the Song as though it were an allegory.

An allegory. What's that?

An allegory is a certain type of writing or speaking in which truth is presented symbolically, in the form of a story or picture. The Scriptures contain many examples of allegory. For example, Psalm 80 presents Israel as a vine from Egypt. When the prophet Nathan convicted King David of his adultery, the prophet told a story about two men. One was rich and had many sheep. One was relatively poor and had just one sheep that he dearly loved. Such examples indicate two important qualities of an allegory: First, true allegory is obviously figurative and not literal. If it's true (and effective) allegory, then somewhere along the line the hearers understand that the people or places and events in a story are symbols that point to other things that are real. When Nathan said, "You are the man," David knew that Nathan had not been talking about sheep, but about women.

How do allegorical interpretations of the Song work?

Since before the time of Christ, many Jewish interpreters of the Song have treated it as a figurative work expressing the love between God and Israel. Likewise, among Christian interpreters the Song has been seen as an expression of love between Christ and the church, or between Christ and an individual Christian. One motivation for presenting the Song in this way is obvious: it relieves the tension presented by a straight-forward reading of the text which comes across as "non-religious" and sometimes very sexy. Another reason for this time-honored way of reading the Song has to do with an ancient conviction about the fullness of the Bible. According to this view, Scripture can and does communicate at several different levels, not just the level of the literal sense of the text.

So is the Song of Songs really an allegory?

No. In fact, all of the interpretations of the Song which treat it like an allegory are really examples of what might be called "allegorizing."

Allegorizing? What does that mean?

"Allegorizing" simply means "ignoring the literal meaning of a text in order to discover its 'deeper,' symbolic meaning." Typical of allegorizing is that it comes up with all kinds of meanings that are not readily apparent, depending on the interpreter. In such cases, we find out more about the interpreter than we do about the text; more about the reader than about the author. I think we should be wary of the allegorizing approach to the Song of Songs.

If allegorizing isn't the best method of interpretation, how should we approach the Song?

It's best to see this material for what it clearly is: a collection of love poetry which expresses the intimate relationship between a man and a woman, a celebration of physical love. As Hardeman Nichols said it: "The literal interpretation of the Song of Solomon declares that this is lyric poetry. . . . The primary object of the poem is to present ideal human love. Surely there is a place in the Bible for the most beautiful love song in all literature."

What's the best way to study the Song?

Begin by reading it all the way through. You should read it at least two or three times on different occasions. Also, you might try different translations. A complete reading of all eight chapters doesn't take long. (Note: Reading the Song with your husband or wife could result in your not making it to the end of the book). You might want to make a few notes as you read. Write down some of your thoughts as well as some of the questions that come to mind. How would you respond to these questions?

1. Why do you think the Song was originally composed?

2. Do you think that all of it was written by the same person, at the same time? Or, does the book seem more like a collection from different times, or even from different people?

3. What might have been some of the reasons why the Song was eventually included in the Jewish Scriptures?

4. What do you think that the Song is uniquely saying?

5. Based on your understanding of the book, what would you say that it contributes to the larger whole of the Bible?

6. If you were asked to present an overview of the Song, what would you include in that lesson?

Church Elders and Their Children, 4th and Final

In the first post in this series, I raised a question: Does Titus 1:6 teach that a prospective elder's children must be Christians? In the New International Version that verse contains the phrase "a man whose children believe." According to the wording of the King James Version, an elder is expected to have "faithful children." Churches of Christ have typically thought that this expression means one or more of a prospective elder's children must be baptized believers. Otherwise, according this view, the man is not qualified to be an elder. But is this the right understanding and application of the passage?

The second post takes up a more-specific question: What does the Greek word pistos mean in Titus 1:6? As we saw, this term has a wide variety of possible meanings. In the New Testament, only a fraction of the occurrences clearly refer to someone's Christian faith, or to Christian identity. Most often, pistos doesn't speak of a believer. Instead, the word simply means "faithful" in the sense of "dependable" or "reliable." However, the majority of popular English translations favor the idea that in Titus 1:6 pistos denotes a believer. The 20th Century New Testament went so far as to translate the phrase, "whose children are Christians." But is that really what the Greek term means in this passage?

The third post included two main ideas:

A. Churches make a mistake if they approach 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 primarily as legal texts. It's better to see these passages as descriptions of the ideal elder. In many cases, a church has done without elders because the people saw these texts as hard-and-fast checklists. As a result, they came to the conclusion that "nobody was qualified." As I see it, constantly reacting to every stickler's objection has hurt many congregations of the Churches of Christ. Anemic traditionalism, rejecting anything that doesn't match the norm of recent memory or the status quo, is not the same thing as faithfulness to the Word of God. It's not even good conservatism.

B. In order to answer our question about the phrase in Titus 1:6, we should pay careful attention to its literary context, the words that surround the word in question.

At this point, I want to finish out this series, attempt to fill in any gaps, and then leave it for you to evaluate.

Pistos in Titus 1:6

To decide what Paul means by pistos in Titus 1:6, our only recourse is to pay close attention to the qualifying statement that immediately follows it. In Greek it says, me en datygoris asotias ey anupotakta.

The King James Bible translates this, "not accused of riot or unruly." The New International Version says, "and are not open to the charge of being wild or disobedient." What follows here are a few notes on the specifics of the Greek phrase behind these expressions:

1. The first qualifier, according to the KJV, is that the elder's children are not accused of "riot." The NIV has "being wild." These renderings come from asotia, an especially strong word that isn't easy to translate into contemporary English. "Debauchery" sounds odd and archaic. So what is the right word? Apparently, I'm not the only person who's bumped up against this question. In the few other places in the NT where asotia occurs, translators seem to have a hard time coming up with the right English expression.

Take, for example, 1 Peter 4:4, one of the few other verses in the NT where asotia is used. Here, the word shows up in a context where the Apostle is describing the reaction of pagans to their neighbors who have recently become Christians. The NIV has, "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation." The New American Standard Bible and the New King James Version also use this odd word. Does anyone say "dissipation" anymore? Does anyone know what it means? To borrow a line from my teacher Jack Lewis, this is where most Bible readers, because they don't know what the word means, will just have to have a reverent feeling and go on. Here, Today's New International Version (TNIV) stretches it out in English, but nonetheless offers a huge improvement: "reckless, wild living." That's a fine rendering of what Paul is saying, I think.

2. The second qualifier is that the elder's children are not open to the charge of being "unruly" (KJV) or "disobedient" (NIV). Much like the first qualifier, this isn't the language of pulling your little sister's ear, or taking a bite of food before the prayer. Instead, this word describes hardcore rebellion. It speaks of someone who has no intention of obeying the rules. A few verses later, in Titus 1:10-11, Paul uses it to describe the "rebellious people" who by their teachings are "ruining whole households" (NIV).

So, these are the words used in Titus 1:6 to negatively define what it means for an elder's children to be pistos. But, if in this verse the word supposedly means "believing" (as in "Christian"), those descriptors certainly don't set the bar very high, do they? It would sound odd, it seems to me, if you described someone else as "a Chrisitan; you know, someone who isn't completely wild and rebellious."

In fact, the more we examine the context, the less likely we are to understand pistos in Titus 1:6 to mean "believer" or "Christian." Rather, taking everything into account, this verse seems to be saying: "An elder is a Christian man with a proven ability to manage a household. Above all, this means that his home isn't a place where people run amuck. His residence doesn't resemble a notorious frat house." My conclusion, therefore, is that in Titus 1:6 Paul does not expect that all of a prospective elder's children must share his Christian faith. What's more, the view that I'm proposing matches up well with what we find in the other New Testament description of the ideal elder.

The Parallel Passage in 1 Timothy 3:4-5

Anyone who compares Titus 1:6-9 with 1 Timothy 3:1-7 will notice something about that second passage: it nowhere says or even suggests that an elder's children must be Christians. Instead, it says, "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)" (1 Timothy 3:4-5, NIV).

The question comes naturally: Why would Paul insist in Titus 1:6 that an elder must have children who are Christians, when in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, sent to a different destination, he makes no such demand? But the question begins to disappear when we do two things (1) pay close attention to how the other words in Titus 1:6 help us to understand what Paul means in this verse when he speaks of the elder's children as pistos. (2) use 1 Timothy 3:4-5 as an interpretive parallel.

Sometime back, I reviewed George W. Knight's fine commentary on the Greek text of the Pastoral Epistles. More than anyone else, he helped to solidify some of the conclusions I was coming to on this question several years ago. His observations on Titus 1:6 sum up my own thinking:

The qualifying statement here, "not accused of dissipation or rebellion" emphasizes behavior and seems to explain what it means for tekna (children) to be pistos (faithful). Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:4 speaks of the overseer "keeping his children under control with all dignity." In both cases the overseer is evaluated on the basis of his control of his children and their conduct. . . . What must not characterize the children of an elder is immoral and undisciplined rebelliousness, if the children are still at home and under his authority. Paul is not asking any more of the elder and his children than is expected of every Christian father and his children. However, only if a man exercises such proper control over his children may he be an elder. (G. W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992] pp. 289-290. The link over the title provides almost all of the text of Knight's commentary, including the section quoted here, compliments of Google Books).

A Challenge

I understand that this view runs against the general pattern of English Bible translation. And if you begin to looking around in the English commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles, you will often find the same thing. Great scholars from the previous generation (for example, J.N.D. Kelly, d. 1997) as well as more-recent commentators (for example, Luke T. Johnson) assume that our passage in Titus demands that an elder's children must be Christians. This view, and its corresponding practice, has also held an honored position among the Churches of Christ, though it has often been applied inconsistently and, as I see it, legalistically.

It's high time, though, for us in the Churches of Christ to embrace our own rhetoric on this question; to "go back to the Bible" and "handle aright the word of truth." If a compelling case can be made for the traditional interpretation, then a congregation should stay with it. But if, on the other hand, it seems clear that the congregation has been more strict than the Bible is, then a choice has to be made. Either the group can be as open as the Lord is. Or they can take the Pharisaic path of seeking "safety" by maintaining a man-made hedge that encircles and "protects" the Word of God.

Naturally, I'm interested to hear your comments and observations. Although I use comment moderation in order to prevent spam and ugly comments from angry exes, I never censor disagreement. So tell me: what do you think?

Church Elders and Their Children, Part 3

[A part of your problem is] your interpretation of who is eligible to be an elder . . . you are excluding an awful lot of folks from being your elders by a very legalistic interpretation of what Paul wrote. Can you have a non-believer in your home? Must you have multiple children? If your youngest child is not old enough to be baptized, are you not eligible to be an elder? . . . You are cutting off openings for your younger brighter folks coming along who are in touch with the culture and who are very gifted, able people. --Lyle Schaller, "dean of church consultants," speaking of the Churches of Christ, Interview in Wineskins magazine, Volume 1, Number 11 (April 1993), pp. 9-11.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6, King James Version)

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. (New International Version)

Here's the question: Does this verse mean that a prospective elder must have one or more children who are baptized believers in Christ? As Schaller pointed out, most congregations of the Churches of Christ say, "Yes." But there are several good reasons for understanding this passage in a different way. That's what this series of posts is about.

Before taking the discussion further, I want to say something about why this is significant. From 1993 through 2005, I worked with two congregations of the Churches of Christ in Connecticut. During that time, I became fairly well acquainted with the congregations of New England. In the 1990s, of about 81 congregations in the six New England states, only about 10-15% of those churches had ordained elders. Since then, some of these churches have taken that step for the very first time. Many of the congregations have been in existence for 30, 40, even 50 years or more. But even now there is only a small percentage of elder-led churches in that region. And why?

Legal Texts?

In general, the answer has much to do with an approach to elder selection that sees 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 as legal texts. This approach begins by assuming that if any prospective elder does not match up well with every descriptive phrase found in both of these passages, he is thereby disqualified. The church cannot appoint him, because he is not a God-approved elder.

This practice begins with a number of faulty assumptions. For example, we can begin by asking, "Why use these two passages in a way that would have been impossible for both of the original recipients?" Timothy didn't have a copy of the letter to Titus. And Titus wasn't reading the First Letter to Timothy. Making a super list by combining both texts is a practice of many contemporary Churches of Christ. In effect, it becomes a tool by which congregations start picking off elder candidates. Ironically, this practice of the Churches of Christ was never followed in any New Testament church. Another series of posts on this subject would focus not so much on the "trees" (like our phrase in Titus 1:6). Instead, it would back away from particulars and think about how best to understand and apply the "forest," the biblical teaching about shepherds.

That said, I want to return to our question. In my experience, the phrase we're studying is one of the most-common sticking points when it comes to whether a man is deemed qualified. The last post looked at some of the different ways that the Greek word pistos is used in the New Testament. Again, this is the word in Titus 1:6 that, in the New International Version, is translated "a man whose children believe." In the King James Bible the phrase reads, "having faithful children." Do those words expect that the elder's children must be Christians? In the last post we noticed that the Greek word pistos refers to Christian faith or identity in only about 25% of its 67 occurrences in the New Testament. This naturally raises the question of how pistos should be understood in Titus 1:6.

Context is Key

Before getting to that question we should clarify something that everyone knows intuitively about the meaning of any word; namely "the determinative function of context." I put that phrase in quotations because it comes from a book by Moises Silva called Biblical Words and Their Meaning. Anyone interested in how the field of linguistics can help us to be better interpreters of Scripture should read it. (The link over the title provides almost all of the book's content). A shorter overview of many of the same ideas can be found in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Chapter 3, "Basic Concepts," pp. 44-62.

Here's a bit of what you will encounter in those readings: Consider the sentence, "I sang before Queen Elizabeth." Upon reading that, most people assume they understand what is being said. The person is claiming to have performed for the Queen. However, what if you later discovered that Queen Elizabeth also sang on that occasion? In that case, the word "before" would not be interpreted as "in front of." Instead, it would more likely be a reference to time, as in "I sang before Queen Elizabeth sang." So, what does "before" mean? Only context provides the decisive clue. Or consider these sentences:

I ate ice cream with my friend.
I ate ice cream with my pie.
I ate ice cream with my spoon.

What does the word "with" mean? It all depends on the words around it, right? This is something that we all know. But we rarely think about it because we make any necessary adjustments naturally, without needing to think about it. The main point is this: What determines the meaning of a word in a sentence are the words that surround it. And, if you know something of the background, the history behind a statement (as in the example of singing "before" the Queen), that also can be decisive.

Now, let's apply these basic ideas to our interpretation of Titus 1:6. What do the words surrounding pistos tell us about what it means in this particular verse? To quote the passage again, a prospective elder's children should be pistos, "not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient" (NIV).

Almost as if Paul knows that people might wonder what he means by the Greek word in question, he adds that defining phrase. Again, in the King James, the phrase is translated "not accused of riot or unruly."

Question: Is that the sort of phrase Paul would use to describe people of Christian faith? Maybe. Or is that the sort of phrase he would use to simply say, "The elder's children, regardless of their age and personal faith, speak well of their father's ability to manage and direct a household"?

I vote for the latter. In other words, I don't believe that Titus 1:6 expects or requires an elder's children to necessarily be Christians. In the next post, I'll bring in another passage that can help make the case. Then, I'll conclude.

Naturally, I'm curious to hear your responses to these posts so far. What do you think?

Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:15

9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint. --1 Timothy 2:9-15, New American Standard Bible.

Disclaimer: I originally wrote what follows based on the wording of an older edition of the NASB, which appears above. I probably picked that translation because of its literal approach. As you'll figure out from my comments, I certainly don't think it's a superior translation of this passage.

I know, everyone wants to know the meaning and proper application of especially 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Maybe someday I'll talk about those verses here at "Frankly Speaking." For now, I'm content to deal with another not-so-easy part of this passage: verse 15.

Because he has spoken of Eve's transgression in the previous verse, in verse 15 Paul names the specific way by which women can gain salvation: they can do it through the bearing of children. What does that phrase and the rest of the verse mean? Of course, there's a lot more to be said than I'm going to say here. Feel free in the comments to add what you'd like. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to quickly sketch the three main interpretations and then ask you what you think.

1. Some interpreters say that Paul meant that Christian women, in giving birth to children, will be kept physically safe. Apparently, this is the view taken by the translators of the New American Standard Bible quoted above. The translation of the NT by James Moffatt clearly supports this view: women will get safely through childbirth. The problem here is that not all Christian mothers have been preserved in giving birth. Tragically, many thousands have lost their lives. A second point against this interpretation is that Paul consistently uses the word translated preserved in the NASB to speak not of mere physical safety but of personal salvation (see, for example, 1 Timothy 1:15 and Titus 3:5). Because of this, most other translations use the word saved instead of preserved. I agree. I think saved is the more-accurate word here.

2. A different view suggests that verse 15 is pointing back to the birth of Christ. According to this interpretation, Paul is saying that when Mary gave birth to the Messiah, the transgression which was introduced by Eve began to be reversed. Salvation entered the world in the person of Jesus. The wording in the margin of the Revised Standard Version reflects this view: woman will be saved by the birth of the child. But this view also has its problems. For one thing, the verse never specifically mentions Mary or Jesus. And, as many of the commentaries point out, if Paul had wanted to make such a statement, he would likely have been much more specific and would have chosen different words.

3. A third view, and one that I think has the most going for it, takes the word translated preserved or saved as a reference to final, personal salvation. It's no promise or guarantee of physical safety in childbirth. Instead, this view understands childbearing as a reference to what might be called "raising kids." That is to say, the phrase refers to all of a woman's duty, especially to her children. The rendering of the Twentieth Century New Testament expresses it well: women will find their salvation in motherhood. The salvation of women, says Paul, comes as a result of fulfilling their God-given role in bearing, nurturing, and teaching children, a major part of what Titus 2:5 speaks of as being workers at home. Of course, simply doing her duty will never save a woman. No Christian lady is going to be finally redeemed simply because she was a good mother. According to this interpretation, that's exactly why at the end of the verse Paul insists that women must continue in things like faith, love, holiness, and good judgment.

So what is this verse talking about? What do you think?

Why Read Old Commentaries?

Every period of church history exhibits a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Human nature being what it is, we tend to prize what we have going for us while remaining ignorant of our deficiencies.

This is the great value of old commentaries for today's Bible students. Although the old books reveal the weaknesses of their time, they also contain its strengths. That's why I love these words from David Steinmetz:

The principle value of precritical exegesis is that it is not modern exegesis; it is alien, strange, sometimes even, from our perspective, comic and fantastical. Precisely because it is strange, it provides a constant stimulus to modern interpreters, offering exegetical suggestions they would never think of themselves or find in any recent book, forcing them again and again to a rereading and re-evaluation of the text. Interpreters who immerse themselves, however, not only in the text but in these alien approaches to the text may find in time that they have learned to see, with eyes not their own, sights they could scarcely have imagined and to hear, with ears not their own, voices too soft for their own ears to detect.

--in "John Calvin on Isaiah 6," Interpretation 36 (1982), p. 170.

- - - - - -

Speaking of old books, I got to go to the noon meeting of the Downtown Lion's Club yesterday. One of my friends, Trent Sisemore, was the keynote speaker. He talked about the history of the English Bible and brought along several examples from his personal collection, including a 1611 copy of the King James Version. Trent gave a really good speech. Afterwards, I got the chance to look through some of those Bibles. Fascinating.