Monday, September 1, 2014

Pyles is a Gift to the One-Law Movement

It's encouraging to see Pyles and various commenters (e.g. "Proclaim Liberty"), against all evidence, try to argue that the book of 1 Peter was written to a Jewish audience and not a Gentile audience (LINK).  Such desperation!  They hate the fact that Peter applies exclusive titles of Israel to non-Jews.  So I couldn't resist leaving the following comment:

1 Peter was written to a non-Jewish audience.  Here's some evidence: 
Ephesians 4:17-18
17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the FUTILITY of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the IGNORANCE  that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.  
1 Peter 1:14, 18
14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in IGNORANCE. 18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the FUTILE way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,  
Notice that Paul and Peter link two key aspects of paganism associated with Gentiles: ignorance and futility.  The Greek terms are "agnoia" and "mataios".   
The other alternative is that this correlation is just a bizarre coincidence and in reality Peter believed that Judaism was a futile and ignorant way of life. 
But I don't think you want to argue that!  : ) 
Shalom, 
Peter

8 comments:

  1. We see similar language in Galatians 4, where he is speaking to Gentiles, verses 8-11:

    However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, I have yet to hear a good argument for that particular verse. It usually is simply labeled as Jews who were Hellenize, as if many generations had gone by, and all they knew was this empty way of life. If that happened, more than likely they wouldn't be Jews any longer, they would have already assimilated. So, not buying it, if someone could has a legitimate argument, I would be more than willing to consider it, but have yet to see it.


    It is like you said, an exclusive title that applies to Israel being applied to believing gentiles, is automatically discounted. I remember Gene arguing this point, and when I pointed to Romans 9, where Paul used Hosea's prophecy, which is exclusively about Israel and applies it to believing gentiles, he fumbled around. The issue here is inserting a bias, over approaching the scriptures honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is perhaps pertinent that he says "your" ancestors. To my knowledge, when Sha'ul, for one, is referring to Jews, he uses inclusive ("our forefathers") or neutral ("the forefathers") language, as "their" ancestors are his ancestors as well. On the other hand, "your" is exclusive of oneself - it inherently communicates "the ancestors of you, but not of me." It would not shock me if this were intentional.

    ReplyDelete
  4. However, Shaul, in 1 Corinthians 10 (I think) speaks of 'our fathers' in a message aimed at the larger Jew-Gentile audience. Adopted in/grafted in, according to ancient near East treaty language means that the 'fathers' (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) are in a very real sense 'our fathers.' May not be by blood, but through the covenant, the connection is every bit as binding.

    Rico Cortes does a terrific job nailing this down in his study of the Torah from an ANE covenant perspective. Once we understand that, I would think that both Peter and Paul very much viewed the believing Gentile as family and this did not sit well with the traditional proselyte promoting traditionalists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not arguing against that point in general. What I mean to say is that by using "your" to describe ancestors, Sha'ul may be referring - in this instance - to ancestors which his audience has, yet which he himself does not have - hence, his readers would be goyim. This doesn't negate the fact - on which it seems you and I agree - that Sha'ul, per Romans 11, would consider them to have gained Avraham, etc, as ancestors in a vary real way, in addition to their biological forebears

    ReplyDelete
  6. Understand and agree. Thanks for the clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that the Apostle Peter wrote his letter to Jews. Honestly. Please read my new post:
    http://faithbasedworks.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/apostle-peter-wrote-his-letter-to-jews/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll check it out and do another post about it. Thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete