Q&A: May Women Teach Baptized Boys?

On May 30, 2022May 7, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Articles, baptism, Bible Study, Church Leadership, Church Practices, New Testament, Questions, Women Studies

The following question comes up once and a while in various forms:

Is it permissible for a baptized boy to be taught by a woman in the church’s Bible School program?

Questions like this often emerge from the heart of a concerned Christian parent whose heart wishes to honor the Lord. I pray and hope that the following guide will be helpful to those seeking an answer to this question.

The question has several elements which much be addressed. They will form the headings of this brief response in the following order: (1) what is the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12?, and (2) does baptism make a person an adult?

The Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12

Paul writes to Timothy,

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (English Standard Version)

If left alone an argument may be made to the effect that a woman can never instruct nor be in a position of authority over a man —never. This would, however, be stripping the passage from its larger context and thereby generating a dangerously misleading analysis of these words.

Paul’s prohibition is built upon two lines of reasoning: (1) the order of creation, and (2) the profile of the fall. Observe:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:13–14 ESV).[1]

Although some apply this passage to domestic relationships (husband and wife), or to relationships in the world, such as in business (no women bosses), Paul is specifically addressing the “places” of Christian assemblies. He is not addressing all interactions between women and men, Christian or otherwise.

In verse 8, Paul uses the phrase “in every place” (en panti topō) which is a short hand for “in every place of assembly.”[2] Thus, the focus of Paul’s prohibition has quite a limited application —the Christian assembly. This is further made clear by the mention of the males —as opposed to the women— who are to pray in the assembly (v. 8), and the emphasis on godly women as doers of good works (vv. 9-10) and as active learners in the assembly (vv. 11-15).

Perhaps a point of clarification is in order. Paul does base the “headship/respect” principle for married couples on the order of creation (Eph 5:22–33), but with a different focus. It would be inappropriate to argue —based on 1 Timothy 2:11–15 alone— that women are to be silent at home before their husbands, and contradictory to passages that assume women have administrative authority in their own home (1 Tim 5:14), which also includes martial rights and due consideration from the husband (1 Cor 7:4–5).

Thus, the prohibition in this passage addresses the particular setting of the worship assembly. This must be kept in mind.

Before we move forward. I know there are many genuine believers that would cringe at the notion that there are teaching limitations along gender lines within the church assembly. Yet, while I understand some do believe this instruction to be ad hoc —unique— and therefore, not normative, Paul’s argument is built on his apostolic application of Genesis 2:18-25 and 3:1-14 which refer to the order of creation and the order of the fall.[3]

This should never be confused with an emphasis on the superiority of men and the inferiority of women, both are equal image-bearers of God (Gen 1:27; 2:18).[4]

Is Adulthood Bestowed at Baptism?

This is the heart of the question. The New Testament, in no place that I have found, marks baptism as the transitional act which bestows not only forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) but also adulthood upon the recipient. If adulthood is bestowed at baptism, then, what of those who are baptized in their 30s or 40s — have these people been simply children up to this point?

I have heard it said before:

If a boy is ready to make the most important decision he will ever make, then should he not be regarded as an adult? Why not?

While the argument appears to have merit, such a view can have disastrous consequences. Let me further my point. Does this also apply to young baptized girls? Are they now adults ready to marry and bear children? Should the newly baptized boy be thrust into church leadership now because he is a “man”? Why not?

This is not New Testament logic on three grounds: (1) it is nowhere mentioned in the NT, (2) baptism is about the “new creation” and forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:17), and (3) baptism is about a “new birth” —a sort of spiritual infancy (John 3:3). So the logic of the gospel runs in the opposite direction of the above claim. Baptism is certainly the most important decision a person can ever make, but that by default does not make a person an adult. This is not what the NT teaches. The assertion is an opinion and we must be very careful with opinions.

Still, even in the New Testament world, there were different words used to describe age groups.[5] One key point to observe is that the ancient world held very a different view of children than modern times when it comes to concepts like merit and value, property, rights, etc. Nevertheless, we will survey these words quickly:

Bréphos means “young” and “fruit of the body” and thus refers to small children/childhood (2 Tim 3:15), newborn infants (1 Pet 2:2), and those within the womb (Luke 1:41, 44).
The words país (small, little), paidíon (little child) and paidárion (little boy, John 6:9) are bit interconnected. Paidion may refer to someone not yet 7 (Matt 2:11,13–14), which covers are large span of time; whereas, a child from the ages 7-14 would be called pais (Luke 8:51, 54). The “adolescent” (14-21) was called a meirákion but the word is not used in the NT (2 Macc 7:25).
There is téknon and teknion: These terms generally reflect “origin” (descendent), the early dependent state of children, and those who are figuratively so (téknon: Luke 11:13; Mark 7:27; Phil 2:22). And teknion was a nursery term for “little child” and is often affectionately used for Christians (John 13:33; 1 John 2:12).

Even when Paul speaks to Timothy and speaks of his “youth” (1 Tim 4:12), he is speaking in relative terms. The word (neotes) itself is relative and often associated with a “youthful spirit” and being impetuous[6] and covered a period until the approximate age of 40.[7]

In no instance is there an example from Scripture that a child becomes an adult at the point of baptism, regardless of the important choice they have made.

Finally, let me add the following. Christians are often called upon to become mature or complete (teleios 1 Cor 14:20). Even the church universal is called upon to grow into “mature manhood” (teleios aner) in the Ephesian letter (4:13; cf. Col 1:28, 4:12). What is more to the flavor of NT teaching is that baptism begins a process of spiritual maturity. It is not a commentary on biological maturity (the brain is not fully mature until the mid-twenties), on legal maturity and accountability (nations and cultures differ), nor on the wisdom the church depends on from its mature leaders.

We should never crush the embers of zeal among our youngest believers and disciples. We need to encourage them and give them an environment for their faith to be nurtured and yield its fruit. I would stress, however, that we do not artificially affirm something upon them —like adulthood— that there is no biblical nor social basis to do. Furthermore, we should not sideline our teaching sisters, many of whom are mothers and grandmothers who administer their own homes with children under their authority (Tit 2:4; 1 Tim 5:14).

So Where Do We Go From Here?

I see no scriptural evidence to remove a young baptized boy from a Bible class taught by a Christian woman simply on the merit that the boy is baptized. But, this does not settle the matter in my view.

The Scriptures do not clearly define a line that distinguishes childhood from adulthood. We often use the phrase, “age of accountability.” Again, there is no general consensus. Is age twenty, based on God’s punishment upon the unbelieving Israelites at the precipice of the Land of Promise (Exod 14:29)? If so, then no youth is accountable before that age and, therefore, baptism would be inappropriate.

Yet, there are plenty of references of young people called by the Lord and brought into His service. Samuel’s call in his early teens to service (1 Sam 3). Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign as king (2 Kings 22:1). Mary was certainly “young” (11-13 years old?) when she conceived Jesus by the power of God while betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1). In her oracle, she acknowledges her inclusion in God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:49). So, it is not a tidy situation to say young people cannot come into God’s plan.

By and large, the conversion excerpts from the Book of Acts narrate responses from believing adults: (1) the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), (2) the Samaritan converts (Acts 8), (3) the conversion of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8), (4) the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8), (5) the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9, 22, 26), (6) the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11), (7) the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16), (8) the conversion of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), (9) the Athenian converts (Acts 17), (10) the Corinthian converts (Acts 18), and (11) the Ephesian converts (Acts 19).

There may be some wiggle room in the reference to “household” in cases like Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34 to include younger believing members. R. C H. Lenksi, for example, viewed “household” (Grk. oikos) as a reference to Cornelius’ “family” in Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34.[8] In a study on the multi-functional social setting of the household in Luke and Acts, John Elliott notes that the term includes “family and kin,” but the term may also include “personnel and property.”[9] This may then include servants, slaves, and household managers who also responded to the gospel. At any rate, a baptized youth does not an adult member of a Greco-Roman household make.

At the heart of conversion, however, is the need for forgiveness of sin, the capacity for belief and obedience, and commitment towards discipleship. This would exclude the youthfully immature to the infantile of the house. So where do we go from here? Youths who respond to God in baptism are still youths subject to their own parents.

Concluding Thoughts

That being said, we concede that there is tremendous wisdom to maintain consistency in the church’s teaching program. Since there is no “clear-cut” age to gauge adulthood in Scripture, it would seem best for congregations and families to determine for themselves an age where the teaching program of the church exclusively selects male teachers during those transitional years from late middle school through high school. But, it should be clear that this is only a judgment call.

Endnotes

Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Everett Ferguson, “Tópos in 1 Timothy 2:8,” ResQ 33.2 (1991): 65–73.
Bruce K. Waltke, “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Unique or Normative?,” Crux 28.1 (March 1992): 22-27. Repr., CBMW News/Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1.4 (Oct 1996): 4-7.
Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 88.
Albrecht Oepke, “pais…,” TDNT 5:636–39.
H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr., Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 529.
Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 124.
“He was to tell Cornelius what would save both him and his house (family). It was a matter of saving this household.” R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 443. Later, regarding the Philippian jailor and his house: “The jailor and his family were baptized in the ordinary way by an application of water in the name of the Triune God” (Lenski, Acts of the Apostles, 683).
John H. Elliott, “Temple Versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (1991; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 225. See also, Jovan Payes “Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus.”

Q&A: Does God Hear the Prayer of a Non-Christian?

On May 23, 2021May 7, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Habakkuk, Prayer, Psalms, Questions

I received a question about prayer and the non-Christian. It asks whether God will or can hear the prayer of a non-Christian. I believe it is a question worth exploring. Here are a few of my thoughts on this blessing.

Prayer

In the Hebrew Bible, a common word translated “prayer” is tephillah (76x). It is found in various contexts of prayer, whether it be the act of prayer, a house of prayer, a prayer on behalf of someone else.[1] It is even used in several of the introductory superscriptions of the Psalms, identifying them specifically as the “prayer of…” David (17, 86, 142), Moses (90), of a certain afflicted (102), and of Habakkuk (3:1).

Prayer is certainly a form of communication lifted up to God, and if the psalms are any indication then prayer may be expressed a wide range of emotions and types. There may be laments expressing frustration and faith, the need for help in the middle of confusion and so forth. There is praise for God faithfulness employing God’s previous saving acts, or his creative powers seen in nature, and extol his wisdom and sovereignty. Prayer even channels our anger and sense of injustice, requesting God to avenge his people by bringing judgment upon their enemies.

That is a wide spectrum of human emotions and desires that may be offered to God. It seems to clear to me that prayer can express to God every part of the human experience —and for the Christian, the Holy Spirit communicates those “groanings” which are “too deep for words” (Romans 8:26, 27).

The question at hand, however, is not the extent of things which humans may pray about but whether God hears the prayer of a non-Christian.

What do We Mean by “Hear”?

I am of the opinion that we need to think of what we mean by God “hearing” our prayers. Hearing is a function of the ear, and an ear hears everything but may choose to focus on a specific sound; thus, some sounds are listened to while others are still heard. This limited analogy simply raises the point that “hearing” is a complex matter.

In Isaiah 59:1–2, the Lord’s distance from his rebellious people is made quite clear:

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. (English Standard Version)

This clearly suggests that there may be contexts in which “hearing” is not about ability, but about choice. God can elect to forego answering his people’s requests of intervention when facing the consequences of their sins.

One’s lifestyle can affect whether God takes into consideration their prayer. For example, Christian husbands are warned that their behavior toward their wife may in fact “hinder” their prayers (1 Peter 3:7). The warning is significant: “live with your wives in an understanding way.” The sexual overtones are often unnoticed in English translations, but Scot McKnight highlights this:

The order for Christian husbands is one of being considerate—literally, of “living with one’s wife knowledgeably.” The verb synoikeo (“living together”) was especially used for sexual relations between husband and wife (Deut. 22:13; 24:1; 25:5), and that is no doubt the intended meaning here, though obviously not limited to that. The Christian man, Peter says, is neither demanding nor selfish in his sexual and marital relations; he is instead considerate, sensitive, and serving.
Scot McKnight, 1 Peter NIVAC (Zondervan, 1996)[2]

Many Christian husbands ought to pay attention to this verse, not merely because of its impact on “answered prayers.” It reinforces a biblical truth that how we treat others impacts our relationship with God. Here, Peter tells husbands that an authentic and healthy marital sex life (and more) affects our relationship with God.

Furthermore, it seems that God’s people are warned that mistreatment of the “sojourner” (Heb., gēr) will not go unnoticed. Mistreatment of “the pilgrim” will likewise affect their prayers. These were non-Israelites that were not members of the Mosaic covenant but lived in the land among the Israelites semi-assimilated. In Exodus 22:23–24, when the sojourner, widow, fatherless cries out to God due to their mistreatment by Israel, God will “surely hear their cry” and bring wrath upon his people. This suggests the non-Israelite’s prayers will be heard in response to injustice among God’s people.

This small sample seems to underscore that the behavior of God’s people does and will hinder His willingness to give attention to our prayers; and, it seems that God is concerned about the injustice perpetrated by his people and will hear the cries of those who suffer at their hands. The words of James are quite poignant:

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (Jas 4:2–3)

What about the Non-Christian?

It was the opinion of E. G. Sewell (1830–1924) that the

Bible teaches very plainly that neither alien prays nor prayers of members will be heard while the one that prays is willingly violating or refusing God’s requirements.[3]
Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell

By “alien” Sewell means the non-Christian.

Sewell argues that God’s people cannot “expect” to be heard when they “turn” from “hearing” God’s word, but his “eyes” and “ears” are attentive to “the righteous” calls of prayer (Proverbs 28:9; cf. 1 Peter 3:12, Psalm 34:15).

The fundamental principle of prayer is found in 1 John 3:22, “whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” The argument appears rather strong. After all, the lordship of Jesus, to whom we approach in prayer must be accompanied by “doing” the will of his father (Matthew 7:21).

Thus, Sewell concludes,

No man, in the church or out of it, need expect God to hear and answer his prayer unless he is devoting his heart and life to doing the will of God as revealed in the New Testament.[4]
Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell

When the healed blind man says, “We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him” (John 9:31), he is affirming a general truth about those rebellious souls who are in covenant with God. This is not a statement about all non-Christians.

This perspective is quite sensible, but it does not exclude the non-Christian who is seeking the Lord.

The Case of Cornelius (Acts 10–11)

We need to be very careful to assume what the Bible teaches on prayer. God’s knowledge is infinite, he preemptively knows what we are going to ask of him (Matthew 6:8). But, the quality of our request along with the quality of our relationship with God seems to play into the reception of our prayer (James 4:3).

The case of Cornelius demonstrates that prayer by a devout person may be heard, however.

Luke portrays Cornelius as a “devout” person who “feared God” (Acts 10:2), who developed various expressions of his spiritual development (alms, prayer). On paper, we might say his character alone made his relationship with God impeachable. In fact, God took his prayers into consideration, for the angel said, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4b).

David Lipscomb (1831–1917) once said,

When a man believes in God and realizes that he is lost, he cannot help praying. God hears such prayers. There is no sin in such prayers. The danger is in the man relying on such prayers and failing to obey God’s commands in other things. This is the point to be guarded against.[5]
Queries and Answers

I think he is right on point when it comes to evaluating the case of Cornelius. Prayer and devotion only brought Cornelius so far. What is telling from Luke’s account is that he portrays Cornelius as a Gentile who is as close to a Jew as possible, and his character is directly related to his prayers have been acknowledge by God.[6]

What is will no doubt be controversial for many followers of Jesus is the caution against reliance on prayers for conversion experiences as is common in many “Christian” circles. It goes by many names, such as “the Sinner’s prayer. But, as David Platt raises during a discussion on disciple making,

“Should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament?”
David Platt, “Why ‘Accepting Jesus in Your Heart’ is Superstitious & Unbiblical,” VergeNetwork[7]

I believe it should concern us. Luke clearly points out Peter was summoned to Cornelius to tell him things he needed “to hear” (10:22), a “message” through which he would be saved (11:14). In response to the preaching of the gospel, Cornelius and his household were baptized (10:42–48; 11:18). It was this same Peter that affirmed the importance of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

For our purpose, to answer if God hears the prayer of a non-Christian, it seems that there is precedent to see that a non-Christian drawing near to God may have his or her prayers heard. So God heard the prayer of Cornelius before his conversion to Christ, and I believe we should be mindful of the many “Corneliuses” that exist today.

Concluding Thoughts

It would seem then that the answer to the question above depends on what we mean by “hear.” In one sense, God hears everything; however, in another sense, God does appear to be selective. We cannot draw up a formula that “a + b = answered prayers,” but it does appear that a person’s character and covenantal relationship with God are major components to prayer.

Scripture more often than not speaks in terms of those who are in covenant with God, and the implications of whether or not God will hear their prayers. Yet, as demonstrated in the case of Cornelius, being an outsider of the covenant does not mean God will ignore the prayers of the “alien sinner” seeking God’s glory and his salvation. The God of the sparrow is faithful to his creation, and for this, we should be thankful (Matt 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7).

Endnotes

Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 813.
Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 186.
David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell, Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell, ed. M. C. Kurfees (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy, 1921), 494.
Lipscomb and Sewell, Questions Answered, 495.
David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, ed. J. W. Shepherd (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy, 1910), 341.
C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 1:493.
David Platt, “Why ‘Accepting Jesus In Your Heart’ Is Superstitious & Unbiblical,” VergeNetwork (April 11, 2012).

Christian Character During Tough Times (2 Pet 1:1-11)

On April 18, 2009March 28, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Commentary, New Testament, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth2 Comments

Introduction

Someone has coined the phrase, “tough times never last, but tough people do.” As the years pass and the hurdles of life with them, this axiom becomes profoundly evident. Life is relentless, however, in its daily dosage of aches and pains – on all fronts.

Sometimes people flail their arms up and give up, feeling helpless. But, for those who are disciples of the Christ, a renewable source of strength and comfort is available: the apostle Peter says that we have been granted “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3). This is the power of incorporating the word of God into a person’s life.

At some time near the end of his life, the apostle Peter dispatched a letter to a church suffering internally because of a number of false teachers were spreading immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism (2 Pet 2-3). It was, therefore, essential to stay grounded in the true knowledge. These Christians must carry the truth of the gospel in the one hand, and maintain a well rounded Christian lifestyle on the other hand.

In articulating these important instructions, we have been bequeathed a treatise that provides guidelines for developing Christian character during tough times. Tough times manifest themselves politically, socially, familially, spiritually, and emotionally. As in the first century, the contemporary climate of immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism is prevalent; and likewise, the inspired apostolic instruction is as relevant as when it was first composed nearly two thousand years ago!

To be sure more could be said; however, reflect on these quick notes on a section of Scripture that is often labeled “Christian Graces,” and in so doing perhaps this study will achieve its goal. The goal is to be more mindful of growing as a Christain (2 Pet 1:3-7), and to realize that being active in this process underscores our awareness of the redemption we have received in Christ (2 Pet 1:8-9). May the Lord bless you, as you strive to make your calling and election sure (2 Pet 1:10-11).

Greeting (2 Peter 1:1-2)

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Unlike modern letter writing standards, ancient letter writers put the author’s name first, followed by some reference that connects the author and the readers. Peter calls himself a servant and apostle, two terms that are quite descriptive. As a servant (the word used for slave), Peter stresses his submission to God and his disposition regarding his ministry to others. The word apostle stresses his spiritual commission to represent God as His ambassador to the world, delivering His message exactly as God empowered him.

The readers are those who share the same faith as he does, they are on “the same level as the author.”[1] Here we find the principle of equality of a faith to be shared. This faith is personal, as developed with their relationship with God and Jesus. Then consistent with ancient letter writing, Peter sends them a greeting. Grace is usually seen as the Greek salutation while peace is typically considered to be the Hebrew way of saying hello. Consistent with the themes of his letter Peter sends this greeting in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

3-4: The Basis for Godly Living

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

Peter continues the theme of knowledge and says that it is through Christ’s divine power (God-based ability), that Christians have been given access to all things that pertain to life and godliness. Christians cannot have the latter without the former. In agreement is Frederic Howe, we conclude that Christians must learn that “the ultimate condition, prerequisite, or essential foundation for holiness in the believer’s life is God’s divine power.”[2]

The Christian has this access through knowledge, but this is not simple knowledge, it is the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence. The reference to his glory and excellence is a “pointer” to which our calling finds completion -to abide with God. Yet this final reality can only be obtained in a life governed by knowledge of the Savior and his teaching.

Knowledge has given us his precious and very great promises, which are the means by which God allows us to become partakers of the divine nature (i.e. to share the holy nature of God). Modern man -even the modern Christian- may feel skeptical about this promise,[3] but it is a promise that in some way those who are faithful will “like him” in the immortal state (1 John 3:2). This holy nature is obtained as one learns how to escape from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Christians are expected to employ God’s knowledge to do this, holiness will not happen by accident.

5: Faith, Virtue, and knowledge

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,

Naturally, since the Christian aim is to escape the corruption of this world and partake of the divine nature through knowledge, Peter provides a list of “virtues” that must be added to one’s lifestyle in order reach these goals.

The virtues described in the chain in 1:5-7 not only are holy actions, but the very chain indicates the fullness of holiness that they must strive for. Thus those who seek them will be completely holy.[4]

In fact, the word supplement implies that “the believer contributes lavishly to the work of his salvation.”[5] Christians must contribute faith with virtue; moreover, this faith is probably the same referred to earlier -a personally developed reliance upon God- that must be contributed to with virtue (moral excellence).[6]

Furthermore, Christians are to supplement their moral excellence with knowledge, meaning that they are to have knowledge in the “how to’s” of a godly life. Contextually, this knowledge is what allows Christians to become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

6: Self-Control, Steadfastness, and Godliness

and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,

In addition to moral excellence and knowledge, to become completely holy and capable of partaking of the divine nature, the Christian is to assume the development of self-control, steadfastness, and godliness. Instead of self-control, some translations have the word temperance (KJV), but this is inaccurate since “temperance” usually implies a self-imposed censorship against alcohol. The Greek word in the text means, “to exercise complete control over one’s desires and actions – ‘to control oneself, to exercise self-control.’”[7] The overarching theme of self-control is one’s ability at self-mastery – i.e. self-government.

Next, is the idea of bearing up courageously under suffering, here translated steadfastness.[8] Perhaps this word provides a better hint of the local situation of Peter’s audience:

The need to persevere is particularly important in the situation Peter addressed, for the opponents were threatening the church, attracting others to follow them (2:2), so that some who began in the way of the gospel had since abandoned it (2:20-22).[9]

And then, disciples of Jesus are to supplement their behavior with godliness. One would think that this exhortation is unnecessary since the whole list of virtues revolves around the idea of devotion towards God in such a way where one “does that which is well-pleasing to Him.”[10] But this list of virtues would be incomplete without such an important inclusion of a vital virtue.

7: Brotherly Affection and Love

and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.

The last two virtues of Christian godliness are brotherly affection and love, elements which are of special consideration because there is a distinction being made here between the two. Brotherly affection (philadelphia) is mutual love, while purposeful love (agape) is more encompassing because it requires self-generated love directed consistently upon another with their best in view.

Fred Craddock discusses these words in the following way:

Mutual affection is literally ‘love of one’s brothers and sisters’ (philadelphia) and is an essential component of church life. But that is just the point: mutual affection, reciprocal love, pertains to life in the church, to the fellowship. Beyond that, however is love, agape. Love does not require reciprocity; it includes the stranger, and even the enemy. It behaves favorably and helpfully toward the other regardless of who the other is or what the other had done.[11]

Sometimes the differences between these words are overstated, but these words of filial and “purposeful” love simply accentuate important capacities a person must engender in order to be a well-rounded Christian. We must be able to embrace the love (philadelphia) that comes easiest to us (usually familial love), and likewise be able to love on a deeper spiritual level – a beneficent love (agape).[12]

8-9: The Importance of these Characteristics

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

Peter does not hold back here, where people are prone to; instead, he affirms clearly that these things -qualities- must be in the Christians possessions and in the process of development. In so doing, he affirms, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not let loose of two concepts -godly living and knowledge- for the two are joined at the proverbial “hip.”

This stands more clearly in stark contrast to the false teachers in chapter 2. Rigorous training and development in godly behaviors assure one that they will not become “useless and unproductive” in the joys that exist in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A strong warning is made against those who would lack these qualities, stressing that to lack these qualities are the result of forgetting that a person’s sinfulness was forgiven and that these sins represent one’s imperfection and need to develop morally. Failure to do this will be detrimental to one’s calling and election.

10-11: Making Your Calling and Election Sure

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Because of the dangers that inhere should a Christian not develop these qualities of godly living, Peter warns with a logical conclusion, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure.[13] The answer to the question “why?” is provided, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. It is crystal clear that Peter is demonstrating that one’s salvation can be a fragile thing should one neglect personal development.

Neglect will give way to falling, and contextually, this fall refers to one’s failure to enter into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peter even affirms, by supplementing one’s life with godly characteristics, one will be richly provided an entrance into this kingdom; however, failure to do this makes this entrance void – it is not just the richness of the heavenly entrance being considered, it’s the entrance into heaven itself.[14] And here we see another major crack in the veneer of the Calvinistic error “Once Saved, Always Saved”.

Conclusion

2 Peter places a high premium on knowledge, especially as it pertains to knowledge and morality, and knowledge and truth. True knowledge appropriately originates from God and of Jesus our Lord and provides the proper framework for the development of godly living. This knowledge is now collected in the 27 documents of the New Testament, as the final revelation of Jesus Christ (John 16:13; Heb 1:1-2).

Guy N. Woods once observed that in this passage a godly character is developed and revealed in the person of deep Christian virtue: (1) those which are necessary to form the Christian character, and (2) those traits which reveal a follower of Christ to be a genuine servant of God.[15]

One of the most striking things about this section of Scripture is the methodical response of the Christians against the false teachers. It was not a brutal attack by physical force – a literal blow by blow as they stand toe to toe. The Christians were to respond with godly character, with love and truth. Viewing this life as concluding with the final judgment, only godly conduct will withstand the type of final exam the Divine Tribunal will release (2 Pet 3:9-13).

Finally, recalling the problem facing the group of Christians of 2 Peter was internal church problems of false teaching manifested in immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism (2 Pet 2-3). The best way, it seems, to outlast troublesome times, is to endure and become spiritually tough. This is precisely Peter’s point. False teachers with their troubles will come and go, but spiritually tough churches will last and last because they are grounded in godly knowledge and have kept their calling and election sure. And for that matter, so will spiritually tough Christians!

Sources

Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Louisville, KY: Knox, 1995), 167.
Frederic R. Howe, “The Christian’s Life in Peter’s Theology,” BSac 157 (2000): 307.
Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, 169; Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1991), 149.
Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 154. Michael Green’s observation of the use of the Stoic practice of making similar virtue lists, and comments, that the “practice of making lists of virtues was already well established among the Stoics, who called it a prokope, ‘moral advance.'” This is not an attempt to make the church thinking like the world (i.e. the Greek world), but to use a familiar practice and leverage its familiarity to equip these Christians to embody Christian character (The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002], 75-76).
Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 251.
Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 24.
(L&N) Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:751.
William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:200.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 300.
Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, 2:273.
Fred B. Craddock, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Louisville, KY: WJK, 1995), 101.
Michael Green has a worthy quote on agape and philadelphia: “This word agape is one which Christians to all intents and purposes coined, to denote the attitude which God has shown himself to have to us, and requires from us towards himself. In friendship (philia) the partners seek mutual solace; in sexual love (eros) mutual satisfaction. In both cases, these feelings are aroused because of what the loved one is. With agape, it is the reverse. God’s agape is evoked not by what we are, but by what he is. It has its origin in the agent, not in the object. It is not that we are lovable, but that he is love. This agape might be defined as a deliberate desire for the highest good of the one loved, which shows itself in sacrificial action for that person’s good” (80).
Perhaps no one word is so misunderstood as the term “called” in the New Testament. Essentially, the church is a group of individuals called out to assemble into a congregation (ek, out of, plus kaleo, to call = ekklesia). A person is called by the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14) and becomes a member of the church (a called out group) through immersion for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-47; Gal 3:26-29 – notice the transitional tenses – “you are” because “you were”).
Kistemaker, Exposition, 257-58.
Woods, Peter, John, and Jude, 152. Woods hand selects which virtues form character and which other virtues reveal genuine discipleship, and here we must disagree because such a segregation is artificial, and not natural with the flow of the passage. In fact, there is the reason to believe that the list of eight virtues is consistent with a literary form called sarites, “in which we have a step-by-step chain that culminates in a climax” (cf. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 297). At any rate, we agree with Woods’ observation – albeit modified to be descriptive of all the virtues enlisted by the apostle.