To answer these questions, and more, I intend to proceed by laying out the internal evidence, external evidence, objections (from strongest to weakest) to Petrine authorship, and proposed solutions to such objections.

Internal Evidence

Obviously the first internal evidence for Petrine Authorship is found in the opening verse: “Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ…” (1Pet. 1:1) There are, as I see it, four possible ways to understand this opening: a.) Peter refers to the very Peter of the canonical Gospels who was an apostle of Jesus Christ; b.) This is pseudonymous writing intended to deceive the audience into believing that the author is the Peter of the Gospels; c.) this is a pseudonymous writing that would have been understood by its original audience to be such; or d.) this is a textual addition/alteration. I will address each of these in reverse order. Could this designation of the author as the Apostle Peter be a textual addition or alteration? (I am not a textual critic and will therefore be leaning heavily on the study of others on this topic.) It seems very unlikely that this would be the case. Out of all of my commentaries on this epistle, only one addresses this possibility. This would seem to indicate that while some may hold to this option, it is not widely held. D. E. Hiebert notes that:

Some argue that 1 Peter was originally an anonymous homily beginning with “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:3, ASV), that it circulated as an anonymous treatise during the second century, and that late in the second century, when the canon was forming, Peter’s name was attached to guarantee its apostolicity. A later editor added the opening salutation (1:1-2) and the conclusion (5:12-14), thus giving it the sanction of an apostolic letter. Supposedly, that explains why 1 Peter was known to the early patristic writers but was not quoted by them as Petrine.

It seems that all of the support for such a view boil down to mere speculation. No appeal that I have seen has been made to a manuscript devoid of 1:1-2 and 5:12-14.  The fact that early patristic writers did not always quote portions of this epistle AND state that the quotation was from Peter need not trouble us. As Hiebert points out Clement often quoted without naming his sources. We ought not to read back Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations into the Patristic era and expect them to properly footnote every quotation.

Hiebert also makes a good point in showing that the early church did not feel the necessity to append an author’s name to the anonymous book of Hebrews.

Therefore, I agree with Beare that “This hypothesis… has no positive evidence to support it, and very little to commend it.”

In the next post I shall consider the issue of pseudepigraphy and by so doing will address options b. and c. from above.

In like manner, critical to the interpretation of the text of 1 Peter is the intended original audience. Was 1 Peter written primarily to Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, or a mixture of the two? At first this doesn’t seem to be that important of a detail, but when Peter starts applying Old Testament terminology that described Israel to his recipients, the identity of those recipients becomes of the utmost importance. If Peter is addressing ethnic Jews who have accepted Christ as the Messiah then it would only be natural for him to use such language. However, if Peter is addressing Gentile believers then his statements would seem to support the argument that the church is the new (or true) Israel.

Based on this revelation of the importance of introductory materials I intend to post a series of posts on the topics of Author, Recipients, Date of Writing, and Occasion for Writing. (I know I have been very sporadic in attempting to post here, so I make no promises about the consistency with which I will accomplish this, but I will try nonetheless to post on a regular basis as I study through 1 & 2 Peter.)

“There is no biblical precedent for supposing that God favors Jews over Palestinians or vice versa. At the end of the day, our heavenly Father is not pro-Jew – he is pro-justice; he is not pro-Palestinian, he is pro-peace. In fact, the priceless material with which our feet are fitted for readiness in battle “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12) is nothing less that a gospel of peace that works inexorably toward justice and equity. Only a gospel of peace and justice through faith in Jesus Christ is potent enough to break the stranglehold of anti-Semitism and racism fueled in part by bad theology.”

“If the house is dark at night, there is no sense in blaming the house for its darkness. That is what happens when the sun goes down. The question to ask is: where is the light?

Again, if the meat goes bad and becomes inedible, there is no sense in blaming the meat for its decay. That is what happens when the bacteria are left free to breed. The question to ask is: where is the salt?

Similarly, if society becomes corrupt (like a dark night or stinking fish), there is no sense in blaming society for its corruption. That is what happens when human evil is unchecked and unrestrained. The question to ask is: where is the church? Where is the salt and light of Jesus?”

Lynchburg has some great carolina style barbecue places. Having been stationed out on the West Coast for the past four years it had been a while since I had the pleasure of some well cooked pork barbecue. Lynchburg offered several restaurants to choose from to meet my pork cravings.

Running in Lynchburg is much nicer than running in the desert. While in Lynchburg I took the opportunity to go for a couple of runs along a section of the James River Trail. The trail follows, and on occasion crosses, the James River. Whereas there is little to see while running in the desert (everything is beige), there was a plethora of trees covered in beautiful green foliage. The only down side was the fact that I don’t run with my glasses on. Here in the desert that doesn’t make much of a difference, but while running along the trail in Lynchburg I did miss being able to see all of the beauty in more detail. Instead of seeing the landscape in all of its brilliance, I felt more like I was running through one of Monet’s works. I also learned that running through a trail that is surrounded by woods without sunglasses is a big mistake. You would think that you wouldn’t need them but the opposite is true. If you run in the desert without sunglasses your eyes will get used to the brightness. But in the woods you get bombarded with short bursts of light followed by shade as the sun shines through breaks in the foliage.

Jerry Falwell and Liberty University have a very good reputation in Lynchburg. Our instructor fondly related several stories about his first impressions of moving to Lynchburg from Mississippi.  He half jokingly stated that Lynchburg lives fifty years in the past. In many ways that’s true.

People in Lynchburg actually drive the speed limit. After years of driving on the 15 and the 10 here in SOCAL driving the speed limit took some getting used to.

Lynchburg has a plethora of Christians. Almost every time I went to a store or restaurant I overheard at least a few people talking about church, mission trips, or something related to Christianity.

Although Liberty University (at least it’s leadership) is very anti-reformed, there were some great reformed works to be found in the local Lifeway. I was surprised by the amount of Piper books and the fact that they had a complete set of MacArthur’s New Testament commentary for sale.

All in all I had a wonderful time in Lynchburg. In fact spending the past three weeks in VA made it very hard to leave and come back here to Barstow. I can’t wait till my time here is done and I can get back to a great state full of great seafood, sweet tea by the gallon, and loads of slow roasted pig!

I began to study and preach through 1 Peter a couple of years ago so I have already outlined the book in some detail. This outline will probably undergo some changes as I work my way through the epistle, but to get this study started I will post what I have thus far.

1 Peter

“Chosen for Holy Obedience, No Matter What”

I. The Trinitarian Gospel of the New Covenant (1:1-1:12)

1. Greetings to the Elect (Pilgrims) (1:1-1:2)

2. God, the Source of Our Salvation; Christ the Means of Our                 Salvation (1:2-1:9)

a. Salvation Evidenced by Joy and Perseverance (1:6-1:9)

3. The Spirit Reveals Salvation (1:10-1:12)

II. Prepare Your Minds For Action (1:13-2:10)

1. A Call To Pilgrim Thinking (1:13-16)

2. Remember the Price of Your Salvation (1:17-1:21)

3. Remember Your New Nature (1:22-2:3)

4. Remember God’s Sovereignty (2:4-2:10)

III. Pilgrim Principles (2:11-5:11)

1. Principles for Pilgrim Living (2:11-3:12)

a. Let People See that You are not of this World (2:11-2:12)

b. Submit to Government (2:13-2:17)

c. Submit to Those in Charge of You (2:18-2:25)

d. Wives Submit to Your Husbands (3:1-3:6)

e. Husbands Honor Your Wives (3:7)

f. Turn From Evil and Do Good (3:8-3:12)

2. Suffering During Your Pilgrimage (3:13-4:19)

a. Suffer for the Right Reasons (3:13-3:22)

b. Endure Suffering Because Christ Suffered for You (4:1-4:6)

c. Glorify God in All Things, Even Suffering (4:7-4:11)

e. Rejoice in Suffering (4:12-4:14)

f. Suffer as a Christian (Pilgrim) (4:15-4:19)

3. Instructions to the Elders (5:1-5:11)

V. Conclusion (5:12-5:14)

1 Peter Commentaries:

1 Peter: The Tyndale New Testament Commentary by Wayne Grudem

Peter & Jude by Martin Luther

1 Peter by D. Edmond Hiebert

1, 2 Peter & Jude: New American Commentary by Thomas Schreiner

1 Peter: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary by John MacArthur

Deuteronomy Commentaries:

The Book of Deuteronomy: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament by Peter C. Craigie

Deuteronomy: Westminster Bible Companion by Thomas W. Mann

Hermeneutics:

Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy

Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos

Putting the Truth to Work by Daniel M. Doriani

I will try to comment on things I find helpful from each of these books as I study through Deuteronomy and 1 Peter.

As a side note, Cheryl and I joined First Baptist Church of Barstow this morning. We have been attending for a couple of months now and after having completed the New Member class we officially joined today. I have been asked to co-teach a Sunday School class due to the former teacher, who was an associate pastor, having accepted a senior pastorate in Palm Springs. This morning in Sunday School I learned that the former teacher left some material for us to teach through. I was delighted to see God’s providence in the fact that the material left for us is a study on 1 & 2 Peter.

“If hermeneutics is an aspect of our minds being conformed to the mind of Christ, it must be engaged through the gospel. Any aspect of sanctification, or growth in holiness, is clouded by our ongoing sinfulness and ignorance of the truth, yet we remain secure in the knowledge of our free justification on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness for us. This justification does not, as it is sometimes represented, relieve us of the motive or responsibility to strive for holiness. Indeed, our free justification provides the only legitimate grounds and the most powerful motive for such striving. Likewise, the gospel presents us with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who, in his earthly life, perfectly interpreted the word of his father. In so doing he justified the fallible attempts of his people to interpret the word. The justification of our hermeneutics by the perfect hermeneutics of Christ is the motivation for us to strive for hermeneutical sanctification. We are not saved by good works, but we will not be saved without good works (Eph. 2:8-10). In the same way, we are not saved by the purity of our hermeneutics, but we will not be saved without some measure of heremeneutical sanctification taking place. The ordinary Bible-reader may be completely unreflective about this, but every effort to understand the Bible aright is a striving for hermeneutical sanctification. At the grass roots, hermeneutical conversion takes place when one becomes a believer. The Bible will never be the same again to us because we, as believers, have made a quantum shift from unbelief and rejection of God’s word to faith and trust in that word, and submission to it.”

These questions about baptism have been on my mind for the past several months. There have been other questions as well. What is the meaning of Christian baptism? How should it be practiced in the local church? To what degree should we fellowship with those who differ from our view of the meaning and mode of baptism? It seems to me that baptism is a very vital and important, though not fundamental, doctrine of the church. Unfortunately, the teaching I have received from the pulpit, in Sunday School classes, and other Bible studies seems vastly inadequate in the way they have taught the Biblical understanding of baptism.

Over the next few weeks, months more likely, I plan on devoting my thinking and reading to the Biblical doctrine of baptism. I must state at the beginning that since the time of my conversion I have been a member of several churches, all of which have been Baptist by denomination. Although this will in some ways bias my opinion I will try my best to allow my view of Baptism to be shaped from Scripture alone.

In beginning a study on the doctrine of baptism I am faced with a difficult problem, namely, where to begin. I have done some cursory reading on baptism over the past few months and the one thing I have concluded is that the debates over different views of baptism stem largely from the fact of different starting points. In their defense of infant baptism, Paedobaptists generally begin their argument by arguing for a covenantal view of Scripture, thus beginning their argument in the Old Testament. In contrast, those that argue for credobaptism begin by querying the New Testament for the first instance of baptism and then using that as their starting point. I’m convinced that this is the root cause of the differences between the two. In his book Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics Graeme Goldsworthy rightly notes that: “Throwing proof texts at each other like so many grenades only results in unseemly shrapnel and much suspicion and hurt. But if I as an Anglican am to understand my Baptist brethren; if I as a Calvinist am to understand my Arminian brethren; if I as an amillennialist am to understand my premillennialist brethren; and if they are to understand me, then we must try to understand each other’s starting points and theological assumptions.”

As I have tried to read books on paedobaptism as well as credobaptism I have tried to heed Goldsworthy’s words and understand the different starting points and presuppositions. However, as I begin my own study of baptism I must make a decision as to where I will begin and what my presuppositions I will begin with. I still have not settled the issue in my own mind concerning Covenant Theology as a whole but it does seem to fit better with Scripture than Dispensational Theology. That conclusion would seem to necessitate beginning with the covenants and therefore the OT. However, it also seems that when paedobaptists begin their study of baptism in the OT they presuppose that baptism is the New Covenant equivalent to circumcision in the the Old Covenant. This is a presuppositions that few seem to admit or take the time to argue for beforehand. If circumcision is synonymous in this sense with baptism then it makes perfect sense to begin a study of baptism in the OT, where circumcision is first instituted. However, we can not presuppose that baptism is the New Covenant version of circumcision until we have a proper understanding of circumcision (based upon the teaching of the Old and New Testaments teaching) as well as a proper understanding of baptism (based upon the New Testament). Therefore it seems that the place to begin when studying baptism would be with a proper understanding of circumcision. This does not mean that we start with the assumption that baptism is the equivalent of circumcision, it simply means that in order to properly understand baptism we must properly understand circumcision. Another consideration that persuades me to begin with a study on circumcision is the fact that many of those in the early church would have had an understanding of circumcision prior to being taught Christian baptism.

So as I set off on my journey to develop an understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning baptism I am going to start off with determining two things. First I need to determine what the Bible (both OT and NT) teaches about circumcision. Second, I need to determine how those in the first century understood circumcision. The reason for the second is due to the fact that those in the first century sometimes understood the OT in a way that differed from the true meaning of the text as explained by Christ and his Apostles. This begs the question of whether we come to the NT teaching on baptism with the biblical understanding of circumcision in view or with the prevailing view during the first century. I’ll try to cross that bridge when I come to it. For now I’m off to the Old Testament to attempt to develop a Biblical understanding of circumcision.

While I work on beginning my own study, here are a list of links to the ongoing discussion over baptism:

From the guys at Fide-O :

The Wonderless Baptism

Paedo-Baptism Argument Debunked

A Debate on the Proper Recipients ofChristian Baptism

Baptize Them All and Let God Sort Them Out

Are Infants Sinners, Should We Teach Our Children To Repent

Credo’s and Paedo’s Find Common Ground

Baptist-plus?

Are Paedobaptists Just Mixed Up?

Links from Justin Taylor’s Blog:

Grudem’s Change of Mind Regarding Differences on Baptism Within Local Church

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Why?

Grudem Response to Piper

Baptizing Small Children

Most Presbyterians Do Not Understand Why They Baptize Infants

The Case For Paedobaptism

Ligon Duncan on Paedobaptism, and Some Thoughts on Acts 2:38-39

Agreements Between Credobaptists and Paedobaptists

Historical Refelections on Baptism and Church Membership

Baptizoblogdebate Roundup

Q & A on Paedobaptism

Believer’s Baptism

In Defense of Paedobaptism

There are probably a lot more articles out there but these are a few that I plan on reading through as I study this issue. I will try to add to this list as the discussion over baptism continues.