Rules of Engagement for Online Theological Discussions

Most people who engage in online theological discussions do so because they are passionate about theology, believing the issues they discuss to be of eternal significance. Theological commitments are deep-rooted and emotions run high when they are challenged. Over nearly two decades of observing and participating in online theological discussions, I've found that they very often become rancorous. Such discussions reflect badly on the Christian religion and are of little edifying value. However, I have seen instances where people who passionately disagree in their theology are able to do so with civility and goodwill, serving the cause of unity and peace even when disagreements are not resolved.1

I confess that I personally have often fallen short of the mark in the way I've conducted myself in online theological discussions. With a view to personal growth and more productive and edifying discussions, I've come up with twelve rules of engagement. (I've written these rules myself but did take some ideas from other sets of rules I found on the web.2) First and foremost, they represent a standard to which I commit myself going forward. However, I also call on potential dialogue partners to commit to the same standard when entering into an online theological discussion with me, whether on this blog, on Facebook, or in a web discussion forum.

Here goes:

1. Jesus and the apostles passed dogmatic judgments on the character and eternal destiny of their opponents. In the context of online discussions, I relinquish any claim to the moral authority that enabled them to do so. Rather, I will always assume my interlocutor's honesty, sincerity, intelligence and general virtue, and will refrain from accusations and insinuations targeting the character or motives of my interlocutor, or the moral quality of his or her actions and words.


I will avoid the condescending practice of accusing my interlocutor of committing a logical fallacy, unless I am certain there is no other way to express why I find his or her argument unconvincing.


I will avoid having a discussion about the discussion, remaining focused on the issue at hand as far as possible.


I will avoid introducing unrelated topics or reintroducing past topics of discussion that distract from the issue at hand.


I will take care to accurately represent my interlocutor's viewpoint, and avoid careless extrapolations and generalizations thereof.


I will seek common ground and try to build relationship with my interlocutor.


I will not be hyper-critical but will be quick to acknowledge goodness in my interlocutor's position and merit in his or her argument. In the same vein, I will be self-critical by readily acknowledging weaknesses and limitations in my own position and argument.


I will avoid straightforward identification of my opinions with truth and my interlocutor's with falsehood. I will instead use the qualified language of academic discourse. Contrast "Your interpretation is obviously wrong" with, "I don't find that interpretation convincing."


I will freely make use of humour and wit that is neutral or, better yet, self-deprecating. I will, however, refrain from anything that could be construed as mocking or insulting my interlocutor, his viewpoint, or his ecclesiastical tradition. This would include words, memes, emoji's, etc. that are sarcastic, satirical, derogatory or vulgar.


I will seek to exemplify the virtues of humility, charity and respect throughout the discussion.


I will make unity and truth the goals of the discussion and will subordinate my own interests and desire for vindication to these ends.


These rules are to be self-policed. Accordingly, I will not cite them in order to accuse my interlocutor of hypocrisy (see rule 1).

That's it! Note: I reserve the right to edit or add to these rules at a later stage.

Footnotes

• 1 A good example of this is the Catholic-Reformed dialogue at Called to Communion
• 2 See, for example: 7 Rules for Online Engagement; The Rules of Engagement: The Lost Art of Debate; The Core Rules of Netiquette; Commenting Guidelines at Memory, Meaning & Faith blog; Posting Guidelines at Called to Communion

The Three Dimensions of Sin

What is sin? It is doing wrong. A simple biblical definition is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), which reminds us that sin is measured against a standard: God's law. (There are also more technical meanings of the word, such as original sin or imputed sin, or sin as a power, which we aren't dealing with here).

My impression is that in Western society today, morality is increasingly measured in terms of respect for the rights of other people, and immorality as the violation of those rights. Thus, for an action to be considered "wrong" it must be in direct violation of the rights of another person or group. Individual freedom is so highly regarded that it must not be restricted unless its abuse demonstrably harms someone else.

This shift in thinking is evident not only at a social level but also in the legal system. We hear of lawyers protesting that their clients stand accused of a "victimless crime" and thus do not deserve any penalty. Criminal acts which have been described as victimless (according to Wikipedia) include individual consumption of recreational drugs (especially cannabis), prostitution and solicitation of a prostitute, public indecency, depiction of cartoon child pornography, and not wearing a seatbelt. The victimless nature of consensual sex acts has apparently been a major factor in the overturning of sodomy laws in many jurisdictions.

While our secular, individualistic society increasingly recognizes only wrongdoing with an external victim (human or animal), the biblical concept of sin has three "dimensions." Sin can be vertical (committed against God), horizontal (committed against another person or group of people), or circular (committed against oneself).

The dimension most commonly referred to in scripture is the vertical dimension. There are dozens of references to sinning against God. These include sins of a "religious" nature, such as idolatry (Ex. 32:31-33; Judges 10:10), but also sins which only involve people (Gen. 39:9; 2 Sam. 12:13). There are also a number of references to 'horizontal' sin, i.e. sinning against other people (Gen. 42:22; Matt. 18:15). The circular dimension of sin is less frequently mentioned, but is emphatically stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 6:18-20: 

"18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

Other references to sin against self include Prov. 6:32 and Rom. 1:24. It is noteworthy that all three of these texts refer to (apparently consensual) sexual sin, since many of the alleged 'victimless crimes' mentioned above are of a sexual nature. Why are these sins against oneself? Partly, as Paul explains, because we are not our own. God, the Creator and Redeemer of our bodies, has called us to set them aside for a higher purpose. As such, he has given us commandments on how we may or may not use our bodies. When we ignore these in the interests of individual freedom, we actually remove ourselves from God's presence and blessing. We rob ourselves of peace and joy.

It is important to realize that there is overlap between the different dimensions of sin. David's adultery and murder were described as sins against God, even though they directed involved only human beings. There are a number of cases where a sin is explicitly described as being both against another person and against God. Pharaoh sinned against God, as well as Moses and Aaron (Ex. 10:16). The prodigal son confessed that he had sinned against heaven and his father (Luke 15:21). Paul declares that a sin against one's brother is a sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12).

In fact, every single sinful act encompasses all three dimensions! First, every sin is an act of rebellion against God, the righteous Creator, Lawgiver and Judge to whom all are accountable. Second, any sin, even an apparently "victimless" one, violates our fellow humans. We set a bad example for others, causing them to stumble; and we defile our consciences, making us more harmful to others. Finally, every sin is against oneself because it is self-destructive and separates us from our loving Father in heaven. As Wisdom declares in Prov. 8:36, "He who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death."

Just as society increasingly discounts the seriousness of 'victimless crime', so the church increasingly discounts the seriousness of 'victimless sin' - particularly sexual sin. It is claimed that sexual sin was very low on Jesus' priority list compared to sins such as self-righteousness and pride. However, this is an argument from silence, and Jesus' apostle Paul made it clear that sexual sin has a victim (oneself) and is inconsistent with our calling to glorify God in our bodies.

Chris Broussard, the Church, and Homosexuality

I was already planning to write about homosexuality and the church this week, but the topic has now taken on even greater poignancy. On Monday, professional basketball player Jason Collins became the first athlete in one of the USA's four major professional sports to announce he is gay.  Asked for his opinion of this announcement, TV sportscaster Chris Broussard, a born-again Christian, caused a national uproar by stating that living as an unrepentant homosexual is open rebellion against Jesus Christ. Jason Collins noted in a subsequent interview that he too is a Christian, but denies that homosexuality is sinful. Which position is aligned with the will of God?

Before turning to this question I want to make a couple of disclaimers. First, I realize that the church has often treated homosexuals very badly. The heterosexual majority know we haven't committed homosexual sins, which makes homosexuals a great scapegoat, a way of turning the focus away from our own failings.

On that point, I myself am a sinner, and one who has lost battles against my own sexual desires. However, God's forgiveness is available to me on the basis of my faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22-23). The same forgiveness is available to any sinner, but is conditional on repenting and confessing our sins (Luke 24:47; 1 John 1:9-10). We cannot confess our sins if we don't think they are sins; hence the need to seek God's will concerning homosexuality. We cannot simply err on the side of approval, because justifying evil is just as wrong as condemning good in God's sight (Prov. 17:15).

Thirdly, I realize this is an extremely sensitive subject, and I regret any offense it may cause (but cf. 2 Cor. 7:8-10).

My previous blog concluded that Leviticus 18:22 was a general prohibition of homosexual acts. However, does this commandment apply in the church age? Several issues arise in answering this question. First, does the Bible convey the will of God concerning sexual morality? Non-Christians would answer no, and some Christians (such as Bishop John Shelby Spong) would too. However, since this issue is beyond our scope, it will be assumed that the answer is yes.

Second, are Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 moral laws or ritual laws? Some Old Testament scholars claim that these texts reflect the cultural circumstances at the time, where homosexual acts were part of foreign worship rituals. Since homosexuality has no idolatrous connotations today, the commandment no longer applies. However, there is no indication of such nuances in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Furthermore, this view incorrectly assumes that ritual and moral laws are wholly distinct. Adultery and child sacrifice are also prohibited in Lev. 18 but, while these may have been associated with idolatrous worship, their prohibition is also moral in nature (cf. Matt. 19:18).

Other scholars claim that the Levitical laws were done away with by Christ, so the law against homosexual acts is no more applicable for the church than the dietary laws (Lev. 11) or the prohibition of mixing fabrics (Lev. 19:19). However, while these symbolic laws were fulfilled and done away with by Christ, there is no symbolic fulfillment of homosexuality in Christ. And, as will be seen, Levitical laws concerning sexual morality are upheld in the New Testament.

The best explanation of the sexual morality laws in Lev. 18 and 20 is that they are simply an elaboration of the Seventh Commandment ("You shall not commit adultery") and are thus moral absolutes for all time, preserving the family in the way God designed it as the core social unit.

The New Testament confirms that these commandments are still in effect. As recorded in Acts 15, there was a great controversy in the apostolic church about whether the Law of Moses was binding on Gentile Christians. In the end, it was decided that it was not, but they were required to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). The first three prohibitions come from Leviticus 17, and so the fourth must refer to the sexual morality laws in Leviticus 18. Thus we have it on apostolic authority that these laws (including the prohibition on homosexual acts) do apply in the church age.

The same idea can be found in Paul's writings. In 1 Cor. 5:1, Paul writes, "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife." Paul has taken the description of incest from Lev. 18:8 and Lev. 20:11. He orders the Corinthian church "not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality" (1 Cor. 5:11). Based on the prior allusion to Leviticus (and the quotation from the Law in 1 Cor. 5:13), we can only conclude that Paul is taking his definition of "sexual immorality" from the Law of Moses.

Paul then mentions homosexuality directly in the following chapter:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NASB)

The two bold words here are translated from the Greek words malakos and arsenokoites. This is the earliest known use of the Greek word arsenokoites, and scholars believe that Paul either coined it himself or borrowed it from Hellenistic Jewish contemporaries. Some have conjectured that the word means something more specific than homosexuality, such as pederasty or homosexual prostitution. However, the most likely source of the word is again Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where the Greek Septuagint translation used by Hellenistic Jews uses the words arsenos (male) and koite (bed). The highly respected lexicon of New Testament Greek, BDAG, defines arsenokoites as the active partner in a homosexual relationship. Malakos (which literally means 'soft'), is defined by BDAG in this case as the passive partner.

In view of the reference to the sexual morality laws of Leviticus 18 in the previous chapter, and the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as the likely source of the word arsenokoites, it is difficult to dispute that Paul is upholding the Levitical prohibition on homosexual acts.

Space prevents us from looking at other significant texts such as Romans 1:26-27. However, the evidence we have looked at demands the conclusion that the Levitical prohibition on homosexual acts represents the will of God for all times and cultures (note that I have emphasized "acts": it is the behaviour and not the orientation that is sin).

Chris Broussard spoke the truth. It is a very inconvenient truth in 21st century Western society. However, it is my hope that some will realize that Jesus does not want to condemn anyone (John 3:17). The Lord desperately hopes (2 Peter 3:9) that practicing homosexuals will recognize the error of their ways as the all-important first step on the road to redemption. This is the same response required of a heterosexual sinner, and the church should be equally emphatic in reaching out to all people with the message of repentance unto salvation.

1 Cor. 8:6: A Swing Verse

When it comes to hotly disputed doctrines such as the Trinity, the two sides typically each have certain Bible texts that they claim in support of their position.

For example, in a debate on the Trinity one might expect the Trinitarians to use texts such as Matt. 28:19, John 1:1 and Heb. 1:10-12 in their argument, while the unitarians might use texts such as Mark 12:29, John 14:28 and 1 Tim. 2:5. Each side would go on the offensive with their own texts, and attempt to defend their position against the challenge posed by the other side's texts. (Of course, one would hope that the arguments were more substantial and systematic than simply quoting 'proof texts').

We could draw an analogy with the so-called "swing states" in U.S. presidential elections. Democratic candidates don't bother campaigning in Texas, and Republican hopefuls steer clear of New York, because they know they can't win those states, despite their importance to the electoral vote tally. Instead, they focus on states that could go either way, such as Ohio. Similarly, Trinitarians know that they can't make their case from Mark 12:29, and unitarians know they can't make theirs from John 1:1, so they try to provide a plausible counter-proposal to their opponents' claims and then re-focus the debate on their own biblical "territory."

I would suggest that 1 Cor. 8:6 is one of the Ohio's of the Bible -- a veritable "swing verse" -- because both Trinitarians and unitarians use it to argue positively for their position. On the unitarian side, for instance, the 1877 Christadelphian Statement of Faith cited this verse as a reason for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. Moreover, one of the most comprehensive books written in defense of biblical unitarianism is entitled One God and One Lord, presumably taken from this verse. On the other hand, Trinitarians have also used this text to make positive arguments for their position; indeed, this text has become one of the most important in claiming that Paul's theology was a prototype for Trinitarian theology.

The text reads thus: "⁴ Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. ⁵ For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, ⁶ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Cor. 8:4-6 NASB)

Unitarians point out that v. 6 says, "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things" while mentioning Christ separately. Jesus is explicitly excluded from the "one God" and therefore cannot be a person in the Godhead. Jesus is given a subordinate, intermediary role, while the Father is the source of all things. New Testament scholars such as James D.G. Dunn see Ps. 110:1 (a pivotal Christological text for the early church) as the main background to the use of the word "Lord" here. Thus the title emphasizes how the Father has exalted the human Jesus to a heavenly position.

Trinitarians, on the other hand, claim that the text includes the Father and Christ together on the heavenly side of the Creator-creature divide that was all-important in Jewish monotheism. Scholars such as Tom Wright and Richard Bauckham see Deut. 6:4, the Shema, as main background to the language Paul uses here. Indeed, they argue that Paul has rearranged the words of the Shema, "the Lord our God is one Lord," to include Jesus within the identity of the one God.

So which interpretation of this pivotal text is more convincing? For me it is undoubtedly the latter. Firstly, if 1 Cor. 8:6 excludes Jesus from being God, it also excludes the Father from being Lord. But Paul is not using these titles for the Father and Son to the exclusion of one another, but to the exclusion of all other claimants to these titles. What should strike us in 1 Cor. 8:6 is not that Jesus is excluded from being God, but that Paul included Jesus in his argument that "there is no God but one." Surely a mere creature has no place in such discourse!

Secondly, 1 Cor. 8:5 appears to be an allusion to Deut. 10:17: "the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords." This is the only place in the Old Testament where "gods" and "lords" occur in the same sentence (Ciampa and Rosner in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 718). Thus it is reasonable that Paul expected his readers to interpret v. 6 with reference to Deuteronomy as well.

Thirdly, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the Greek preposition dia followed by a genitive requires that we see Christ as participating in creation: "through whom are all things and through whom we exist." The very same language is used of God in Rom. 11:36 (by Paul) and Heb. 2:10. Paul is writing on the nature and existence of gods; there is no indication in the immediate context that he is limiting the scope of his statements to the new creation. Thus, the "all things" should be taken as absolute, or qualified only with "in heaven or on earth" (v. 5).

It is not wrong to say that the man Jesus was exalted to the status of Lord by God  (Acts 2:36). However, for early Christians, this exaltation was an impetus for questions about Christ's identity rather than the answer to those questions. 1 Cor. 8:6 shows that for Paul, Jesus' Lordship ties into the very definition of Christian monotheism.

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Hebrews 7:3)

One aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity is the concept of the eternal Sonship of Christ. This is the idea that Christ is, always has been, and always will be the Son of God.

When they hear about the eternal Sonship, unitarians tend to roll their eyes and think, "There they go again with their unscriptural jargon." At least, that's what I did when I was a unitarian. However, my studies of the Word of God have led me to the conclusion that the eternal Sonship is a biblical idea. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is found in Hebrews 7:1-3:

"1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually." (NASB)

This text doesn't come up a lot in Christological debates or discussions because the argument the writer of Hebrews is making is rather cryptic. Once the idea is unpacked, however, the implications for our understanding of Christ are unmistakable. One recent commentary on Hebrews explains the point very well:

"In Genesis 14, Melchizedek is introduced out of the blue and disappears as quickly, his brief appearance interrupting a narrative that deals with the king of Sodom (vv. 17, 21-24). We know his name and office but nothing of his family or his previous or subsequent history. In terms of the biblical narrative, he is thus ‘without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.’ His literary persona therefore suggests to our author a parallel with the Son of God, who is in very fact ‘without beginning of days or end of life,’ and the psalm, which speaks of ‘a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,’ reinforces this thought. It is not a historical argument – nothing in the OT suggests Melchizedek historically had no parents, was not born, and did not die, and our author’s argument does not necessarily show that he thought this to be the case (though v. 8 may point that way). It is rather an argument from literary silence, setting Melchizedek up as a literary model for the eternal Son of God. In his very rootlessness and timelessness, he forms a suitable model for the one who was to come, the Son (not of any man but) of God, who shares God’s eternal existence and can thus uniquely exercise that eternal priesthood Psalm 110:4 has claimed to be the prerogative of ‘the order of Melchizedek.’ To our historically tuned minds, this may seem a bizarre conclusion to draw from silence, but it is an argument from the text, not from history, following the well-attested Jewish hermeneutical principle (found both in rabbinic and in Alexandrian writings) that what is not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. The comparison serves to underline the eternity of our true high priest in contrast with the transience of the OT priests, a theme that will be developed in vv. 23-25." (R. T. France, Hebrews, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Hebrews - Revelation, ed. Longman and Garland, p. 92)

The comparison made by the writer of Hebrews cannot merely refer to the Son of God in his humanity, because as a human being Christ did have a genealogy, a beginning of days and a mother. It is also worth noting that the writer likens Melchizedek to the Son of God, and not the other way around. This would be anachronistic unless the Son pre-existed (cf. John 1:30; 8:58).

Nor can this argument from Heb. 7:3 be dismissed as case of "proof texting." It must be seen in the fullness of the message of the writer to the Hebrews, who describes Christ as actively existing in the (distant) past, present and future. Past: the world was made through him (Heb. 1:2). Present: he upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3). Future: he is the heir of all things (Heb. 1:2).

Past: He laid the foundations of the earth (Heb. 1:10). Present: he remains (Heb. 1:11). Future: his years will have no end (Heb. 1:12). Past, present and future: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).

Thus we should not be surprised to see that Heb. 7:3 implicitly teaches the eternal Sonship of Christ. It is hardly an anomaly; it fits right into the picture of Christ painted throughout the epistle.

Was Peter's first epistle written to deported Roman colonists?

The First Epistle of Peter opens with these words: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," (1 Pet. 1:1 NASB). These areas spanned several provinces of the Roman Empire within the region known as Asia Minor which forms part of modern Turkey (see map here).

Just who were these people to whom Peter wrote his epistle? Were they Jews, Gentiles or a mixture of both? And what particular relationship did they have with Peter that caused him to write them a letter?

New Testament scholars have proposed a number of different theories. A tradition dating back to antiquity has it that Peter wrote the letter to Jewish Christians. In support of this is Paul's statement that Peter was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8), as well as the use of the Greek word diaspora in 1 Pet. 1:1, which was (and still is) used of the dispersion of Jews throughout the world.

Recent commentators have proposed that the letter was written to mixed Jewish-Gentile congregations (so Grudem) or even primarily Gentile congregations (so Schreiner). Schreiner points out that phrases such as "the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" (1 Pet. 1:18) and "Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people" (1 Pet. 2:10) are easily applicable to Gentile converts but not to Jews. Under this theory, the reference to "scattered exiles" in 1 Pet. 1:1 refers figuratively to the spiritual status of Christians as God's people living in a pagan world rather than their literal political status.

However, even if we resolve the issue of ethnicity we still need to explain how these congregations of Christians were known to Peter. It has been suggested that Peter made a missionary journey through these areas, and indeed that the reason the Spirit prevented Paul from preaching in Asia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6-7) is that Peter was already at work there. However, there is no direct evidence that Peter ever preached in these areas. In light of this, other suggestions have been proposed.

One suggestion has it that Jewish pilgrims in the audience at Peter's Pentecost sermon (which was attended by people from Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia - Acts 2:9) believed in Jesus Christ, then returned home and planted churches. These churches would have seen Peter as their spiritual father and thus he wrote the letter to encourage them. This idea is interesting but again, there is little evidence to support it.

A very intriguing suggestion, argued in great detail by Jobes, has it that the audience of the epistle consisted of Christians who had been under Peter's guidance in Rome but were subsequently expelled from Rome and resettled in new colonies within Asia Minor. Jobes summarizes her argument as follows:

"The theory is based on several points of historical evidence: (1) Claudius, and perhaps only Claudius, established colonies in every one of the five regions to which 1 Peter is addressed. (2) Colonies were typically populated by deportations from Rome and other urban centers. (3) There is the historical evidence of Roman writers of the first and second centuries that Claudius did expel people associated in some way with 'Chrestus' [thought to be a corruption of Christus, i.e. Christ]. (4) Peter is the stated author of 1 Peter. (5) The ancient tradition that places Peter in Rome during the reign of Claudius continues to be cogently argued...Even if Peter wrote in the 60s, the colonization of Roman Christians still provides a motivation for a letter to these remote regions" (Jobes, p. 39).

While the New Testament does not explicitly describe a trip to Rome by Peter, the reference to "Babylon" in 1 Pet. 5:13 is taken by most commentators (ancient and modern) to mean Peter wrote the letter from Rome. Jobes further notes that the word parepedimos (translated 'exiles' in 1 Pet. 1:1) is equivalent to the Latin word peregrinos, which was used to refer to non-citizens of the Roman Empire. This class of free non-citizens were frequently the target of expulsions from Rome.

It is impossible to know with any certainty whether Jobes' theory is correct (and, unless you have a keen interest in early Christian history, it probably doesn't matter to you!) However, while there is no direct biblical evidence for this theory, there is historical evidence to support it, and it has good explanatory power. It provides a clear reason why Christians in these remote areas of the empire - not known to have been evangelized by Peter - should receive a letter from the apostle encouraging them in the midst of very trying circumstances. It also explains why Peter shows no evidence of familiarity with the areas to which he is writing, or the specific situations faced by the readers. 

Finally, if this theory is true we can see God's providential hand at work in these events. If Christians expelled from Rome by Claudius resettled in Asia Minor, not only would they have evangelized these areas, but their expulsion likely saved them from the persecution of Roman Christians that occurred in the 60s under Claudius' successor, Nero.

References:

Grudem, Wayne. 1988. 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Jobes, Karen H. 2005. 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Baker Academic.

Schreiner, Thomas. 2003. 1, 2 Peter and Jude, New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman.

Theology vs. Bible Reading

One of the starkest differences between the Christadelphian community and many older Christian denominations is the attitude within the groups toward theology and Bible reading.

Christadelphians have historically placed a lot of value on personal Bible reading, but no value (or even a negative value) on a formal theological education. Many follow a daily reading plan that takes them through the entire Bible each year. However, the group's founder, Dr. John Thomas, had a very cynical view of theological studies, as seen in the following quotation:

"The same thing is styled in our day 'theological science,' 'divinity,' 'ethics,' 'hermeneutics,' and so forth; terms invented to amaze the ignorant, and to impress them with the necessity of schools and colleges for the indoctrination of pious youth in the mysteries they learnedly conceal." (Eureka, Vol. 1, 6th ed., p. 198)

This negative view of theology as a discipline of study persists among some Christadelphians today; and while no longer unheard of, it is still very rare for a Christadelphian to study theology at an institution of higher learning.

Contrast this with the attitude prevalent in some mainline church denominations. There, it is accepted that it is the priest or pastor's job to understand the Word and teach it to the congregation. That is why he (or she) goes to seminary and gets a degree in theology. Regular Bible reading by the lay members of the congregation may not be discouraged, but neither is it expected.

In my opinion, both of these opposite attitudes are flawed and a balance needs to be struck between theology and Bible reading. In the case of mainline churches, a biblically illiterate congregation will stagnate spiritually, and be vulnerable to deception by false teaching, whether inside or outside the church. Even among those with a theological education, regular reading of the Bible helps one to be grounded and see the "big picture" of God's revealed purpose rather than getting "tunnel vision" for one's area of specialization.

On the other hand, regular Bible reading with a complete absence of theological knowledge in the church is also a recipe for error. For instance, as Grant R. Osborne explains:

"The Bible was not revealed via ‘the tongues of angels.’ Though inspired of God...the absolute truths of Scripture were encased in the human languages and cultures of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks, and we must understand those cultures in order to interpret the biblical texts properly. Therefore Scripture does not automatically cross cultural barriers to impart its meaning." (The Hermeneutical Spiral, pp. 23-24)

One who follows a daily Bible reading schedule may easily forget that the Bible is not one book, but many books written over a long period of time in diverse historical, socio-cultural and linguistic settings. Without some understanding of this background we simply view the Scriptures through the lens of our modern Western mindset, which inevitably leads to misinterpretation and misapplication of the Word. 

There are limits in how rightly one can divide the Word of truth armed only with a Bible, a concordance and one or two other study aids. At some point, one needs a greater knowledge of biblical languages, cultures, history, etc. And while one must think for oneself, one should also become familiar with the volumes upon volumes of previous Bible scholarship rather than pretend one is wiser than all who have gone before.

As someone who has some experience on both sides of the "Theology vs. Bible Reading" fence, I encourage Christadelphians and mainline churches to learn this from each other: theology and Bible reading are not enemies. They are both vital for God's people.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 12: Answering Objections

Here is the final installment of this series. I hope you have found it enlightening. Remember, the full study can be downloaded in written form from www.dianoigo.com

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 11: Five Problems with the Christadelphian View

Part 11 of the series. Five underlying problems with the Christadelphian view of the devil and Satan.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 10: The Existence of Fallen Angels

The 10th installment of this series:

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 9: Satan and Angels

This video discusses the relationship between Satan and angels, and argues that Satan himself is an angelic being, according to the Bible. Key passages include Matthew 25:41, Revelation 12:7-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:14.

Revelation 12:7-9 makes a lot more sense against the background of Daniel 10, which teaches that angelic princes (both good and evil) are involved in human political affairs. For an excellent discussion of this topic, see the article Daniel 10 and the Notion of Territorial Spirits, by DE Stevens.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 8: Satan, Beelzebul and Demons

This video discusses the connection between Satan and demons, with a particular focus on the Beelzebul Controversy recorded in Mark 3:22-30, Matthew 12:24-32 and Luke 11:14-22.

For the paper about demons referred to in the video, see Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament, by James D.G. Dunn and Graham H. Twelftree.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 6: The Temptations of Christ

The next video in this series seeks to answer the question, who was the devil that tempted Christ (as per the accounts in Mark 1:12-13, Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13)?

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 5: Satan in Job 1-2

Five videos into this series, I've finally managed to figure out how to edit out the annoying 'white noise' in the background. I hope this will create a more pleasant listening experience from now on. Special thanks to the developers of three free software packages that have come in handy: Avidemux, Audacity and Youtube Movie Maker.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 4: New Testament Overview

The latest video in this series about the Biblical devil provides several observations that will be fundamental to interpreting the words Satan and devil in the New Testament.

Reminder: the full study can be downloaded in written form from www.dianoigo.com.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 3: Old Testament Overview

Here is the third installment of my video blog series highlighting the main points in my paper, The Accuser of our Brethren: Unmasking the Biblical Devil. This part gives a very brief overview of the devil and Satan in the Old Testament. I hope you find it enlightening.

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 2: Presuppositions

In this second installment of the series entitled, "The Accuser of our Brethren: Unmasking the Biblical Devil" we examine our presuppositions with the aim of keeping them in check.

Once again, if you would like to read the study in its entirety, please visit www.dianoigo.com.

The Accuser of our Brethren: Unmasking the Biblical Devil (Part 1)

I've decided to go the video route for the next few blogs in order to present my lengthy study on the devil and Satan in an accessible way. If you're interested in reading the full study, you can download it from www.dianoigo.com

Here is the first video installment:

The Ten Commandments Test

In the previous ten articles we took stock of each of the Ten Commandments. With help from the rest of Scripture, we reached some surprising conclusions about what these commandments are really saying. Now it’s time to take the Ten Commandments test: have you kept the Ten Commandments? Note that if you have broken even one of the Ten Commandments on one occasion, you fail the test. As it is written in James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

You shall not covet

The last of the Ten Commandments reads, in Exodus 20:17, like this: “You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour's.”