Commentary on First Peter (25)
Peter says that his readers had "lived in ignorance" before they became Christians. "Ignorance" is just one of the words used in the New Testament to signify the intellectual incompetence of non-Christians, both Jews and Gentiles. Unbelief does not arise from superior rationality and knowledge, but it is invariably associated with irrationality and ignorance. Scripture regards all non-Christians as defective in their minds.
A person who is born with mental retardation cannot function like other people when it comes to learning and reasoning, and one who has suffered severe brain damage would have a difficult time performing the tasks that others regard as ordinary. Likewise, sin has inflicted such a blow to the mind that non-Christians are born with a severe intellectual impediment that only God can cure. This is not obvious to the non-Christians themselves, just as one mentally retarded person might not recognize the condition in himself or in another person. But their condition is clear to God, and it ought to be obvious to Christians as well.
Some Christian scholars try to relegate the mental defect that Scripture attributes to unbelievers to a mere "moral" ignorance, or foolishness in a moral sense. But I have never really come across a coherent biblical explanation of what it means for a person to be morally stupid and not intellectually stupid. In any case, Scripture is careful to distinguish between the moral and the intellectual issues in the unbelievers. It distinctively refers to them both, often as two related but distinguishable problems with the non-Christians.
It is true that when Scripture speaks this way about the unbelievers, it is not referring to only a lack of information on their part, but also the fact that they lack a relational knowledge of God. But the way that Christians scholars point this out is often a little suspicious. It is as if they want to preserve the perception that unbelievers can be very intelligent in all things except when it comes to spiritual matters. However, since God is the creator and ruler of all things, and all things are intelligible and truly understood only when considered in relation to him, this means that unbelievers are necessarily incompetent in all intellectual matters and on all subjects.
God is not just the crown of knowledge, but he is also the foundation. One cannot have a true view of physics, biology, psychology, or any other subject, unless he first affirms the one true God and his revelation. And contrary to what some Christians teach, once we affirm God and Scripture, we still cannot reason apart from them and arrive at knowledge. We cannot just pretend to embrace the Bible as the foundation of all our thinking, but then proceed to reason without it, and declare by force and without reason that sensations are reliable, that induction is valid, that the scientific method is logical and yields knowledge, and so on. Just as the unbeliever cannot arrive at truth apart from God, neither can a believer arrive at truth if he departs from God in his thinking.
So to point out that Scripture does not refer to only an ignorance of information but also a lack of relational knowledge does not paint a better picture of the unbelievers in any way; rather, it paints a much worse picture of them. It does not make them appear more competent but much less competent. A Christian might lack information, but that is easy to fix – he can simply be told the truth. But a non-Christian cannot change just because you tell him the right information. He is too foolish to rightly process truth or to reason validly from correct premises.
You can tell a mentally retarded person the right information, but he cannot grasp it. He might just stare at you and drool. In some cases, for the person to be able to repeat something that is said to him or to follow some simple instructions would be considered an astounding breakthrough. This is similar to the non-Christian's condition – not just when it comes to spiritual things, but when it comes to all intellectual matters. The difference is that his handicap is, to some people, not as obvious as staring and drooling.
What can be done? Just as it is humanly impossible to help someone with severe mental retardation to make beyond the most superficial improvements, mere men cannot help the non-Christian – God must perform a miracle. Thus Scripture refers to the new birth, and to an enlightening of the mind when the sinner is converted and given faith in Jesus Christ.
This is one of the plainest teachings in the Bible, that non-Christians are both sinful and stupid, not just sinful. They are not intelligent, and none of them remain in unbelief because they are too smart for the Christian faith. This is important on several important levels. It is pivotal to a proper understanding of the depravity of man and the grace of God, as well as to the correct approach to apologetics and evangelism. However, it is also one of the hardest teachings for Christians to accept, since it appears that many of them have a perverted admiration for non-Christian scholarship. Because this arises from a denial of Scripture and a distortion of reality, it is both ungodly and unhealthy.
Commentary on First Peter (24)
1 Peter 1:14-2:3
As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."
Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
We have spent much time on the beginning verses (1:1-13) of First Peter because they provide the theological foundation for us to understand and appreciate the rest of the letter. As mentioned, Peter would soon begin to tell his readers how they should think and behave within specific situations and relationships. However, this does not begin until 2:13. The first major portion of the letter, therefore, does not end with 1:13, but continues all the way to 2:12.
Between 1:14-2:12, we find two sections that in some ways are similar to 1:3-13. One similarity is that in all three sections (1:3-13, 1:14-2:3, 2:4-12), Peter appeals to a major theological theme and then draws the appropriate conclusion from it. Thus Peter tells his readers, in effect, God has chosen you and saved you, and you are privileged to live in this time of fulfillment (1:3-12) – therefore, set your mind on grace (1:13). Then, second, you have become children of God, and now you call him your Father (1:14-25) – therefore, feed on spiritual milk and grow up in your salvation (2:1-3). Finally, you have been made priests of God through Christ, and as living stones, you are being built into a spiritual house (2:4-10) – therefore, abstain from sinful desires and live good lives among the pagans (2:11-12).
These themes and conclusions are in turn the basis for the instructions and exhortations that appear in the second major portion of the letter, which begins from 2:13. These instructions and exhortations would lack context and the believers would lack the strength to follow them if not for the understanding that they follow from the nature of their salvation.
That said, there are at least two reasons why we treat 1:3-13 (or 1:1-13) as the ultimate or primary foundation, even though the subsequent two sections (1:14-2:3 and 2:4-12) do not begin the so-called "practical" portion of this letter.
First, although the second and the third sections introduce their own theological materials, they represent specific aspects of the great salvation that has already been discussed in the first. Second, although the second and the third sections exhibit some similarities in content and structure, rather than waiting until 2:13, Peter starts to mix his indicatives and imperatives beginning from 1:14. Unlike the first section, which stresses what is true about the believers, these two sections contain both declarations about the believers and instructions for the believers.
With the above in mind, let us consider 1:14-2:3 in this chapter of the commentary, and then 2:4-12 in the next.
"The Da Vinci Code" in PDF
Our short article on The Da Vinci Code is now available as a PDF file at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/davinci.pdf
Under our copyright policy, you are permitted to print, copy, and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for any ministry purpose, such as for your church, study group, or personal outreach.
Recommended:
Presuppositional Confrontations
The Da Vinci Code
The following has been adapted from an "internal" message originally sent to our private mailing list.
The Da Vinci Code is a recent popular novel. Although its author admits that it is fictional, he also claims that the plot is based on historical facts. These "facts" in turn refer to a conspiracy in which the Church has hidden information concerning Jesus Christ that if uncovered would prove damaging to what has come to be orthodox Christian beliefs. As the author admits, these alleged "facts" are in fact nothing new, nor is this the first time that they have been written about. They are in reality based on a number of documents, theories, and legends that scholars and informed believers have been familiar with since…well, forever. And they have also been refuted since forever.
However, now that these theories have been interwoven into a thriller that many consider to be entertaining, they are suddenly brought to the attention of the general public. And of course, most readers have no way of discerning between fact from fiction. A story can often disarm people's critical faculty, and transmit the theories and beliefs that stand behind it into people's thinking, as if by osmosis. Whether a story is true or false, the average person is easily influenced by story because most people are irrational and undiscerning. So whether it is transmitting truth or falsehood, a theory gains influence when it is placed in the form of a narrative. This does not mean that the method of storytelling is in itself deceptive or otherwise problematic, but I am saying that a theory can gain access to an irrational person's mind more easily when it is transmitted as part of a story than if it is presented in nonfiction form.
I appreciate the work that a number of people have done in formulating specific answers to Da Vinci, as long as the contents of their materials are accurate and effective. These answers, of course, are not based on new research and reflection, but on what scholars and informed believers have known and affirmed all along, only that the information is now applied to the novel.
Nevertheless, there are two major problems that I find with most of the Christain responses to Da Vinci.
One problem that I have against these materials is not the answers that they give, for on the whole they would be correct, but the philosophy behind their arguments. For example, they might respond to a historical claim in Da Vinci with arguments formulated from a purely empirical epistemology. Although their arguments might still be sound relative to the established (agreed upon) methods of investigation, they might reflect too much reliance on and confidence in empiricism in establishing their conclusions, in arguing for the Christian faith, or responding to attacks. Because of this faulty foundation, their entire presentation will necessarily mix in some of the uncertainties and logical problems that are inherent in this approach. To use another topic as an illustration, Christians can use scientific arguments to argue against the theory of evolution. That is, they could use the scientific method to formulate scientific arguments against scientific objections. But if in their presentation they show an epistemological reliance on science, and if science is itself uncertain, irrational, and even false (as I have argued elsewhere), then their approach would make it appear that Christianity is itself uncertain, even if Christianity appears more likely to be correct. So, this would be the first reservation that I have toward Christian answers to Da Vinci.
Another problem that I find in the Christian responses to Da Vinci is the suggestion that there is no harm for a person to read the book if he would remember that it is just a novel. A number of writers admit that they find the book rather enjoyable, only that they have a problem with the claim that the plot is based on historical facts. However, the book is not only inaccurate about history, but what it is inaccurate about — what it speaks against — has to do with the truth of Scripture, the identity and work of Jesus Christ, and even the very nature of God. Therefore, the work is not just "inaccurate" — it is blasphemous. Since this is the case, it is sinful for a Christian to say to others, "As long as you know the facts, go ahead and read it! It's rather entertaining, really. Just remember that it is a novel and don't take it too seriously." Even if there are legitimate reasons to read it, this is certainly not one of them. Instead, I would insist that a Christian sins greatly if he reads the novel for this reason, and a Christian leader sins still more severely if he suggests that it would be fine to read it for this reason.
We should never tell people that it is fine to read or watch blasphemy just because it is entertaining blasphemy, just because it does not pose a real threat to our faith, or just as long as we do not take it seriously. I would insist that it is a great sin against the Lord to read or watch, or tell people to read or watch, for this reason. One reason that many people do not think this way is because they have a man-centered morality. We would not allow people to watch pornography just so that they could be entertained or informed, but from a God-centered perspective, blasphemy is much worse than pornography. How dare we be entertained by it? How dare we? What kind of monster would I be if I were to be entertained by a novel that insults my wife or a movie that mocks my parents? But it is fine to enjoy a novel or a movie that blasphemes our Lord, just as long as we do not take it seriously? At least from this standpoint, those who think this way are just as guilty as the author of Da Vinci. You better have a much better reason for reading the book or watching the movie than mere curiosity, or a lust for entertainment or controversy.
Now that Da Vinci is being made into a movie, it is that much more likely that some of you will encounter people who mention either the book or the movie to you. Do not be distracted by the current intensity of the hype. Your main response should still be to discuss foundational issues such as epistemology, metaphysics, to arrange a comprehensive clash between the believing and unbelieving worldviews, and so on. To do these things, you should review my Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Apologetics in Conversation. Any time that you spend on the details in Da Vinci should eventually lead the discussion back to the foundational worldview issues and the contents of the gospel.
This is not very different from when someone challenges you with the theory of evolution. Yes, you can use scientific arguments to defeat him on this issue, but then what? Even after proving that evolution is false with scientific arguments, you still have not proven that other arguments against Christianity are false, or that Christianity is right. So eventually you must still investigate the first principles of the opposing systems of philosophy. So although it is never necessary, it might be useful to know several scientific arguments against evolution, if for no other reason than to use them as ad hominem arguments to show that you are not afraid to deal with science, or to show that your opponent is wrong even if you employ his irrational methods.
In the same way, it might also be useful for you to have access to information against the historical claims in Da Vinci. Therefore, at the end of this article, I am listing several online resources on the subject. There are many others, but the ones that I have listed here are enough to answer the challenges against Christianity that people might have from reading the book or watching the movie. There are also a number of printed books written to answer Da Vinci, but again, these web sites should be enough, and they are especially convenient when dealing with other people, since you can send them the links in an email.
In any case, remember that people refuse to believe in Christianity never because they have some solid argument or evidence against it, but because, as the Bible says, their deeds are evil, so that they love the darkness and hate the light. The false information in Da Vinci just gives them the excuse to claim that they are making a rational rejection of Christianity, although there is nothing rational about it. So unless the Holy Spirit works in their hearts to produce repentance and faith, even if the claims in Da Vinci are shown to be completely inaccurate, they would still refuse to believe, but they would just find another excuse to hide behind.
Therefore, letting the unbeliever force you to devote too much time to any one type of objections — whether it is Da Vinci, or evolution, etc. — is to fall into a trap. He can always make up something to say, no matter how ridiculous, just so you must take the time to refute it. You see, whether he is consciously doing it or not, he is just trying to keep on making objections so that he does not have to be confronted with the true condition of his soul and the truth about Jesus Christ. In fact, at the right time in a conversation, you should point this out, and say, "I have pointed you to the answers against the claims made in Da Vinci. Now you must either refute these answers, or acknowledge that Da Vinci does not really pose a problem for the Christian faith. Or are you still hiding behind Da Vinci, not because it really gives you any rational objection against Christianity, but because you are trying to find an excuse to reject the truth?"
The unbeliever wants to stop you from talking about him — that is, about the unbeliever himself. He will say anything. He will throw anything in your face just so he can delay a real confrontation with God for another moment. If it is not something from Da Vinci, it will be something else. So, yes, answer his objections, but always bring the conversation back to him — the wretched condition of his soul, his sins against God, and his only hope for salvation in Jesus Christ. Make him defend his beliefs. Make him justify his behavior and lifestyle.
It is true that Da Vinci mentions issues that are good for believers to know about, only that the novel makes false claims about these issues. For example, it makes a claim about the relationship between Christianity and Constantine, emperor of Rome. But I think that the best setting to first learn about this and other topics is a general course in church history — a positive and organized presentation on the subject — and not in the context of a refutation of a piece of popular fiction that makes false claims about church history. And of course, a general knowledge of church history would automatically refute what is claimed in the novel, since it would include information on what really happened at the time of Constantine, and so on.
All-Purpose Apologetics
These works expound on a biblical approach to defending the faith that is always applicable. It is able to destroy all objections against the faith even when you do not have the time to give specific replies to them. And as mentioned, even if you give specific answers against Da Vinci during the course of a conversation with the unbeliever, you should still lead him back to the foundational worldview issues discussed in these works.
Presuppositional Confrontations
Answers to The Da Vinci Code
These are online resources with specific answers against the false claims made in Da Vinci.
thetruthaboutdavinci.com/articles/
leaderu.com/focus/Davinci_movie.html
envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-Part1.htm
envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm
ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/pressroom/mieselinterview.asp
Commentary on First Peter (23)
Verse 13 begins with a "therefore" and indicates that here is Peter's conclusion from all that preceded – not only verses 10-12, but reaching back all the way to verse 3. God has chosen us for salvation in eternity, and in his great mercy, he has given us a new birth, a living hope, and an indestructible inheritance. Even now he is guarding our salvation through our faith, which is of greater worth than gold. We rejoice in this salvation – the prophets longed to see its fulfillment, and even the angels are stirred to holy curiosity and desire to learn about it.
"Therefore" – because of God's great mercy, because of the inexpressible and glorious joy that this produces in you, and because of the greatness of this salvation and the privilege of living in this time of fulfillment – Peter says, "prepare your minds…be self-controlled…set your hope fully on the grace…."
What is translated "prepare your minds for action" here literally says "gird up the loins of your mind" (KJV). The oriental expression refers to the act of gathering one's long and flowing robe, and tying it around his waist with a girdle, so that he may proceed unimpeded with whatever strenuous activity that he may need to perform (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 4:29).
The NIV correctly conveys the meaning, for the expression indeed means to "prepare…for action." What it does not communicate is that this preparation is done by gathering up our loose garments so as to remove out of the way anything that would hinder our movements or that would cause us to stumble. However, Peter is not referring to physical activity, but he is saying that in light of the greatness of our salvation, we should prepare our minds in such a manner.
So when Peter continues and tells his readers to "be sober" (KJV), he is not just warning them against becoming drunk with wine, but he is mainly referring to mental intoxication. The NIV translates, "be self-controlled" and rightly conveys the intended meaning of mental alertness, sobriety, and discipline.
Remember that Peter is writing to encourage those who are facing or would be facing hardship and persecution, especially due to the fact that they were Christians. Later in the letter, he will give specific guidelines regarding the attitudes and the practices that are appropriate for the believers to assume when they come under these trials. Although he will continue to enrich the theological foundation that he has constructed, these beginning verses provide the background for all that would follow.
Here, then, is the conclusion that Peter draws from verses 3-12. Because of the greatness of our salvation, we are to prepare our minds for action by tightening our grip on our thinking, and by putting out of the way all the false beliefs, evil desires, and other distractions that would impede our progress. We must prepare our minds in such a manner so that we may remain spiritually agile, quick to grasp and follow the will of the Lord.
Rather than being mentally intoxicated by what the world offers, we are to remain clear in our minds and to exercise self-control over our thinking. Instead of looking toward the world for acceptance, for strength, or for comfort, we must direct our minds to set our hope on the present and future grace of God. This grace already belongs to us, and even now we are experiencing some of its benefits, but we look forward to its consummation when Jesus Christ is revealed.
Whether by its temptations or by its persecutions, whether by teaching us its attitudes or by presenting us with its rewards, the world tries to intoxicate our minds, by drawing all of our thinking into it, so that we would forget our homeland of heaven. If we do not stay sober and alert, ready to do right and to avoid error, the world would cause us to stumble with all its fanfare about career, culture, reputation, status, associations, entertainment, self-satisfaction, and so on.
But if we would prepare our minds and control our thinking, and then set our hope on the grace of God, then we will retain an otherworldliness that is proper to a citizen of heaven, and the world will neither be able to mold us nor to crush us. It is with this mindset, founded on an understanding on God's grace in our salvation, that we are prepared to follow Peter's upcoming instructions on how to think and behave when we undergo hardship and persecution.
Commentary on First Peter (22)
The third implication from what we have established about the unity of biblical revelation is that we must reject the doctrine of dispensationalism. Especially dangerous is an extreme version that think the people of God in the Old Testament came to salvation in a way other than faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Or, in our context, we must reject any doctrine that says there were no "Christians" in the Old Testament.
We must never suppose that the people then were saved by works, or by a general faith in God, or by a special mercy that did not require conscious faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, we must insist that the only kind of salvation has always been Christian salvation, that the only true faith has always been Christian faith, and that it has been this way ever since the time of Adam, and not only since the time of Christ.
Nevertheless, Peter spells out at least one difference between the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament believers. And on this difference hangs Peter's point in this passage (see v. 13). As we have seen, the difference is not that God's people in the Old Testament believed another message, or that they knew nothing about the gospel of Jesus Christ; rather, the difference is that, although they knew and believed in the same gospel for salvation, they lived in a time of expectation while we live in a time of fulfillment. How we spurn the grace of God and insult the prophets, if we fail to appreciate this difference, and the privileged position that God has given us! If it had been their choice, the prophets would have gladly changed places with us.
Jesus says in Matthew 13:17, "For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it." This does not mean that these "prophets and righteous men" knew nothing about the coming of Christ or his work and message, for if this was the case, they would not have known to long to see and hear what those in the time of Christ would see and hear. But they knew enough about these things so that they could long to see and hear them, to live in the time when they would become true, in the time when their own prophecies would be fulfilled.
What Peter says is that the prophets spoke about "the grace that was to come," and they "searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing." They then received the revelation that "they were not serving themselves but you." So, as Paul writes, "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Corinthians 10:11). So this is the difference, and this difference is significant enough that Peter rests on it, or rather the implication drawn from it, the point that he is about to make in verse 13.
The implication drawn from the difference is that Peter's readers, and in fact all those who would believe since the coming of Christ, have the privilege of living in the time of the fulfillment of all that the prophets had said about this great salvation. The prophets longed to experience for themselves all that the Spirit had predicted, but this was not granted to them; rather, God has chosen us to live in these times. The statement that "Even angels long to look into these things" (v. 12) serves to reinforce this same point. Prophets searched and angels look, but on you has come the fulfillment of these things.
Commentary on First Peter (21)
Before we proceed to something else, there are several important implications that we must draw from this.
First, what we have established above necessarily means that the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is Christian Scripture. No part of the Old Testament can function as "Jewish" Scripture in a sense that denies the Christian gospel. The Old Testament had always been Christian Scripture, even from its very first chapters, and it was entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:2). But they rejected it (John 5:39-40), and now it is entrusted to the church (1 Timothy 3:15).
Despite what anyone might assert about himself, no non-Christian truly believes the Old Testament. Any Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament should also become a Christian; otherwise, he would have just as little claim to the Old Testament as a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or an African witchdoctor does – that is, none at all.
Second, because the Old Testament speaks of the Christian gospel even since the beginning, this must become a controlling factor in the practice of biblical theology and exegesis. At no time must the scholar or student completely exclude the New Testament perspective in reading an Old Testament text in an attempt to avoid an anachronistic interpretation.
It is often pointed out that, when interpreting a text, one must consider the biblical and historical background of the passage, so that he would not import to the text information that the original writer and readers had no way of knowing. For example, one cannot assume that something that is said in Genesis arose from the background of the fullness of revelation that is in the New Testament. Rather, one must interpret what is said from the background of what had been revealed up to that point in time. Another way of putting this is to say that in biblical theology and exegesis, one must acknowledge the progressive nature of revelation.
Related to this is the principle that one must also consider the culture of the time. For example, even if certain remarks about an object sound to the modern reader like a description of a telephone, this would be an unlikely interpretation since the original readers could never have understood those remarks if this is indeed what the text is talking about.
On the surface, this seems to be a sound and reliable guideline in interpretation, and indeed it has its proper application. To offer an obvious example, we must not interpret something that we find in Jeremiah as if that prophet had read the Gospel of Luke. On the other hand, we know that Daniel had read Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2), so that we can interpret the Book of Daniel with this in mind. However, if we are not careful, or rather, if we fail to acknowledge what the Bible claims about itself, we can apply this seemingly sober-minded principle in a way that in fact results in a false interpretation of Scripture, and even in an indirect denial of its divine inspiration.
As we have seen, although biblical revelation is progressive, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ had already been announced at the very beginning, and at least in this sense, we must read the entire Bible as Christian Scripture and nothing else. We must never pretend that there was ever a period or section in the Old Testament when the text is not aware of the essential elements in Christ's atoning work and its results, that is, his sufferings and the glories that would follow.
Peter observes that it was revealed to the prophets that "they were not serving themselves but you" (v. 12). That is, the whole Bible was written to be read by "Christians," and especially those who live in the age of the fulfillment of what the prophets said (see also Romans 4:23-24, 15:4; 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, 10:11). So to read the entire Bible as Christian Scripture is not to commit the fallacy of anachronism, but to read it as it is intended to be read, and to understand it better than the original readers could.
We must also keep in mind that the "real" author of Scripture is God himself, and he was thoroughly "Christian" in his outlook even before creation itself. The human writers were mere instruments, and it was the Spirit of God who really spoke and wrote. Although God progressively revealed his mind through Scripture, his own knowledge is not progressive, so that he wrote even the earliest part with complete knowledge of his own plans and purposes. We must not forget this, lest in the attempt to avoid anachronism, we make the terrible error of treating the Bible as a purely human product.
Commentary on First Peter (20)
All the way back in Genesis 3:15, God had already preached Christ, as the seed of the woman, to Adam and Eve, and at the same time declared the serpent's defeat. Although the serpent would "strike his heel," God tells the serpent that the seed of the woman would "crush your head."
Galatians 3:8 says that the Scripture "announced the gospel in advance" to Abraham, saying, "All nations will be blessed through you." The verse specifically refers to the gospel of justification by faith, and through this gospel God would justify even the Gentiles. It is by this message that God would make Abraham's descendants as numerous as the stars. And it is by believing in this same message, then still in promise form, that Abraham was counted as righteous before God (Genesis 15:5-6).
So of course Abraham knew and believed in Jesus Christ. As Jesus himself remarks in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." Note: He saw it and was glad. By this it is clear that he had some definite information about the person of Christ, the significance of his work, and the circumstances surrounding his ministry. In addition, he "was glad" about what he knew – he rejoiced at the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that he knew everything that we now know, but however vague and partial his understanding was, it was enough to be described as "seeing" the day of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 24:26, Jesus mentions that the prophets had predicted that Christ would "suffer these things and then enter his glory," as if to refer to these two phases of his ministry is an adequate summary of his redemptive work, and as if these things were what the disciples were supposed to believe from the Scripture concerning himself. So the prophets had received the content of the gospel message.
Peter says that "all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days" (Acts 3:24). Turning back to 1 Peter 1:12, there he says that the prophets "spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you." In other words, the prophets spoke of the same things that those who preached the gospel had now told Peter's readers. The prophets spoke of the very contents of the gospel message.
In addition, verse 11 says that these prophets spoke by "the Spirit of Christ," the same "Holy Spirit" (v. 12) that now inspires and energizes those who preach the gospel. To be precise, the verse says that it was "the Spirit of Christ" that "predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." The prophets spoke the same message as those who now preach the gospel because they spoke by the same "Spirit of Christ," or rather, the same Spirit of Christ declared the same message through them both.
Thus it is clear that the Old Testament prophets had received major and detailed revelations regarding the sufferings of Christ, the glories that would follow, and also the time and the circumstances in which these things would happen. In fact, they knew much more than what today's professing Christians know or would care to learn. Moreover, what they knew and what they believed was called the "gospel," and explicitly described as an advanced knowledge of what Christ would both perform and experience, as well as the spiritual purpose of his work.
Therefore, we conclude that the people of God in the Old Testament, ever since the time of Adam, were aware of and saved by the same gospel that we now know and believe. They had less information than we do, their picture of the work of Christ was not as clear and detailed, and perhaps they did not realize all that his redemptive work entailed, or perhaps they did not have a full revelation of the magnitude of the blessings that would follow. Nevertheless, it had always been the same gospel in essence, the same message about the grace of God, sovereignly decreed and executed for our salvation. And insofar as, by God's sovereign control and enabling, they believed what God had revealed – whatever the extent of the revelation was when they lived – they were saved from their sins and righteousness was imputed to them.
It follows that, since they knew and believed the same gospel as we now know and believe, in this sense we can very appropriately call them "Christians" – they were believers, followers, and disciples of Jesus Christ. In fact, once we have obtained this biblical perspective, we now see that God's people have always been "Christians" in this sense, and "Christians" have always been the only kind of people whom God has saved. The only true faith – the only faith revealed by God and wherein lies salvation – has always been the Christian faith, whether in the Old or New Testament. Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Daniel, Malachi, John the Baptist, and so on, were all Christians – yes, with some differences compared to us, but Christians nonetheless.
Commentary on First Peter (19)
Third, the prophets also knew "the time and circumstances" in which the sufferings and the glories of Christ would come about. Now, if we are not careful, we might misunderstand 1 Peter 1:11 as if it says that the prophets knew about the sufferings and the glories of Christ, but that they did not know about the time when these things would happen and the circumstances surrounding their occurrence. But Peter is saying the opposite of this, since what he says in verse 11 really leads to verse 12. This latter verse says, "It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you."
So they received revelation on top of revelation, and revelation that explained and extended previous revelation. Verses 10 and 11 say that when God revealed to the prophets things concerning the sufferings and the glories of Christ, they researched and investigated further concerning the "time and circumstances" of these events, so that these were revealed to them also (v. 12).
The verse literally says, "what, or what manner of time" (KJV, NKJV), and some argue for the translation, "what person or time" (RSV, NASB). I favor "time and circumstances" (NIV) or "time and situation" (God's Word Translation), but the point remains the same either way, since whatever the prophets were curious about, whether "time or circumstances" or "person or time," verse 12 says that it was revealed to them that they were speaking about a future period.
We will offer Daniel as an example, although we cannot take time to reproduce all the relevant verses. In 8:27, he says that a vision that he saw was "beyond understanding." But he was one who searched the Scripture for answers and pleaded in prayer for insights (9:2-3, 22-23, 10:12; 1 Peter 1:10-11).
So God gave him additional revelations: "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble" (9:24-25).
We need not examine the details of this passage to realize that it has something to do with the time and the circumstances surrounding the coming of Christ (see also 12:5-13). This is sufficient to illustrate our point. Another example is Isaiah, who foretold the birth of Christ, and the circumstances surrounding his birth, including his lineage (7:14, 9:6, 11:1). There is also Micah, who predicted the birthplace of Christ (5:2).
Commentary on First Peter (18)
But there is more, for second, Peter writes that the prophets also knew and spoke about "the glories that would follow" the sufferings of Christ. These would include his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation to the right hand of the Father over all of creation. Even in Isaiah 53, we notice something about the glories that would follow his sufferings: "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied…Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong."
There is Psalm 45:7, which says, "You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." The verse addresses "God," and then says, "your God, has set you…." This can only be a reference to Christ, who is God and man, the eternal Son of God and also the natural Son of David.
Similarly, Psalm 110:1 says, "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" Jesus used this verse to challenge the people: "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" (Luke 20:41-44). Again, the answer is that Christ would be the eternal Son of God incarnate, following the line of David in terms of his human nature. And the Lord God says to this Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." The New Testament says that this has been fulfilled in the person of Jesus (Acts 2:34-36; Hebrews 1:13).
Then, there is Daniel 7:13-14: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
The New Testament writers refer often to Old Testament prophecies about the glories of Christ and their fulfillment in him. John 12:41 says, "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him" (see Isaiah 6:11). Concerning David and Psalm 16, Peter says, "But he was a prophet and knew…Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay" (Acts 2:30-31).
Remember, the point here is that the prophets knew and spoke about both the sufferings and the glories of Christ. We have been looking at the prophecies that they gave in the form of explicit statements, but if we will also take account of the Old Testament figures of Christ, such as Moses, Joseph, David, Jeremiah, and so on, we will see that even through the lives of these prophets, God had been telling the story of Christ over and over again to his people, through his many servants, in different words and in various ways. This is why when Christ came, the Jews had no excuse to fail to recognize him, or to reject him once it was evident that he was the one foretold (John 5:39-40).