Customer Reviews

1 Peter (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a very good exegesis of 1 Peter. It provides in-depth analysis of the major issues in the text, and it doesn't get bogged down in scholarly discussions. Grudem's appendix on the spirits in prison is worth the price of the book

wayne grudem's 1st peter commentary is power-packed. he fits a lot more into his tyndale commentary than most in the series. great scholarship, exposition, and price with little academic jargon make this book a good buy.

Purpose: The purpose of this commentary, as is the purpose of all in the Tyndale set is to provide a medium length commentary aimed at the lay reader or pastor. It should not be too technical for the lay person or too brief to prove useful to the pastor. Discussion on matters of grammar and original language and interaction with other scholars should be limited. Wayne Grudem did a good job of meeting these goals. His commentary is a little on the scholarly side for the Tyndale series but certainly is readable for the average church attendee.

Things I liked:
1. In a relatively short space Grudem lays out an excellent introduction to the letter. In particular, he clearly and thoroughly lays out the case for Petrine authorship and a date prior to heavy persecution. I found his arguments against the letter being pseudopigraphic quite persuasive.

2. Grudem interprets the text in a very clear headed fashion. Consistently I found myself in agreement with what he said. He wades through the text and always seems to pick the common sense interpretation of the passage. Unlike some commentators, you will never find yourself asking, "where did that come from?" He sticks to the text and rarely reads too much into it. His reasoning behind his interpretations is explained when necessary and he also notes when he disagrees with notable scholarship. Also, much like his Systematic Theology, he displays his ability to pack a lot into a small space. He says much more in 239 pages than some commentators would in twice that length.

3. His appendix on 1 Peter 3:19, 20 is a masterpiece. It may be Grudem at his best. He spends 37 pages on those two verses thoroughly defending his interpretation on a highly controversial passage. Whether you come to agree with him or not, his argument is so evenhanded and well presented that it is worth buying the commentary for the appendix alone. One note though, the appendix is quite technical and some knowledge of the original language is necessary to fully benefit from it. There is a shortened, less technical version in the commentary proper.

Criticisms:
1. Eerdmans is a terrible publisher. As is typical with their books, the typeset is low quality. While it is always readable, in spots it is a little distracting. However, given the low price of the commentary you cannot complain too much.

Overall I give the commentary five stars because it does an excellent job of fulfilling its purpose. A pastor or well studied layperson probably should get an additional commentary like Schreiner or Michaels.

I purchased the kindle version and it was not worth my money. The problem is that the table of contents breaks down the introduction into sections such as "author, place of writing, date, etc..." but then the actually commentary is just one section titled "commentary". This means that on a kindle you have no way of navigating 90% of the book. You have to click through the 200 pages of commentary one page at a time until you find the particular scripture you are looking for. Purchase the paperback version so you can easily find what you need!

The reason I picked Prof. Grudem's commentary instead of others is because he is known for a careful in-depth study of Scripture with the ability to explain it clearly. This is not to say that other commentaries are not as good, but since I was so edified by his systematic theology text, I thought I would study his commentary on 1 Peter as well. Petrine and Pauline epistles are similar in that they usually start with doctrines followed by applied theology. The message Peter conveys as he begins the letter with the great doctrine of salvation is what a right living should look like as a result of a right soteriology. In other words, soteriology not only has to do with the salvation of soul in the world to come, but it transforms the believers' present life and their worldviews; in their relationship with God, morality, relationships with their fellow Christians, civil authorities and at workplaces (chapters 1-2,4). The reality of salvation should also be demonstrated in marriage, love and services in the church (chapters 3-5).

A term that doesn't show up often in the NT that Peter uses twice is parepidemos (1:1 and 2:11) that Grudem does a nice analysis on (p.52-53). He doesn't like the use of "exile" as an English equivalent of the word since it conveys someone who is forcefully removed from his or her homeland, which is not what Peter means. I agree with the assessment that the right translation is either "sojourner" or "those who reside as aliens or temporary residence away from one's homeland" in a spiritual, not physical sense that the true believers' homeland is heaven. Grudem points to Phil 3:20 as reference to compare this passage with, but I argue Heb 11:13-16 is a better parallel since the context is closer to that of 1 Peter and the same word parepidemos is also used there. In fact, the parallel with the Hebrews passage that talks about Abraham and the OT saints considering themselves as pilgrims provides a more compelling argument that Peter desires his readers to have the same mindset and lifestyle as well.

The theme of suffering seems to be dominant in 1 Peter considering the context in which it was written; namely during Nero's reign of terror (p.37). Not only does Peter remind the readers that simultaneous grief and joy are normal in the Christian life (p.68), but there is a divine design in it to test and solidify the faith of God's people and that God "commends with special honor those who trusted him in hardship even though they could not see the reason for it; they trusted him simply because he was their God and they knew him to be worthy of trust. It is in times when the reason for hardship cannot be seen that trust in God alone seems to be most pure and precious in his sight" (p.70). As a further encouragement, Peter gives an eminent example of Jesus that continues in "perfect obedience to God in the face of the most difficult opposition and hardship" (2:21-25, p. 137). Perhaps it is useful to quote Heb 12:3 when discussing these verses due to a close parallel to what the writer has in mind as well.

The best section of the commentary when it comes to a brilliant exegesis is when Grudem deals with the difficult passage in chapter 3:19-20 since I have had a hard time understanding it. The questions that naturally come out are (1) who are the spirits in prison? (2)what did Christ preach? and (3)when did he preach? (p. 165-170) that he elaborates further in the appendix with references to dominant themes in Jewish literature. Not only does Grudem provide a right exegesis to answer these questions, but more importantly he also lists the implication to believers and the church throughout the ages (p.168). I am not going to discuss the details here but encourage the readers to read and study them for themselves.

What I take home from studying Grudem's commentary is as follows. It is technical but it is not boring or difficult for most laypeople. He brings up plenty of Greek words and the references where they are used in some other literatures, but he does so in an engaging manner. The purpose of orthodox theology is orthopraxy and ultimately doxology. I believe this is the principle with which we should always use when reading the Scripture which is Grudem's principle as well. This is where he does best that makes this commentary so enjoyable.

This book presents a good evaluation of I Peter. However, it could probably be updated.

Late in life, just before his difficulties with Emperor Nero, Simon Peter Bar-Jona, a.k.a "St. Peter," actually contributed two books to the Holy Bible: the First and Second Epistles of Saint Peter. The apostle was assisted by his friend, Silvanias, "a faithful brother" and a "light that shineth" (Silvanias, though not brilliant, was an absolute halogen bulb compared to Simon Peter; for one thing, he did not sign his name with an "X".)

Wayne Grudem, in his inspired line-by-line commentary on Saint Peter's epistles, demonstrates for us that every major translation -- the KJV or AV, the RSV, NIV, NASB, et al. -- is a ridiculous perversion of Simon Peter's Aramaic. Grudem even pokes fun at "Kelly's translation" (pp. 5, 10, 49 et al), which is a version I never heard of before. (Grudem may be thinking of Kelly O'Brien, who when he has had too much Guinness Stout will parade through the streets of Dublin, in the wee hours of the mornin', belting out stories of St. Peter and the Leprechauns.)

"This makes little if any sense!" writes Grudem of English versions other than his own (p. 51).

But it's not really fair to blame other Bible translators for all of the infelicities we find in the epistles of St. Peter. Some textual cruxes or problems of exegesis are not so much "stupid" as actual, genuine, mysteries that were put there by the holy Ghost, to defy so-called "common" sense; without which, books like Rev. Grudem's would be impossible; or at least, unnecessary.

Keep in mind that Simon Peter was always brighter than his younger brother, Andrew--i.e., not "bright" in the normal IQ sense of "intelligent," but "bright" in the sense that he had a sunny disposition. (Andrew was more melancholy.) Now you may remember that Chief Tonto called his Caucasian sidekick, "Kimosabe" ("Emptyhead"), without hurt feelings. And that is why Jesus called Simon Peter by the affectionate nickname, "Cephas," which is Aramaic for "Blockhead" (literally translated, "Dumb-as-a-Rock") - not to hurt Simon's feelings, but just for the record. And truly, when it came to intellectual wattage, Simon Bar-Jona was not the brightest of the sixteen apostolic candles (John 1:42).

When composing 1 and 2 PETER for the New Testament, the holy Ghost (speaking in Hebrew) told Simon Peter exactly what to say. Peter repeated it, in provincial Aramaic, to Silvanias. Silvanias then translated, into pidgin Greek, Peter's Aramaic paraphrase of the holy Ghost's Hebrew (1 PET. 5:12, 2 PET. 1:19-21). And the translators for Zondervan Corp's New International Version put Peter's two epistles into plain English, thereby to retain the spirit, if not the literal sense, of the bone-headed original-at-one-remove.

Both of Simon Peter's primal papal epistles are tucked away near the back of the New Testament. Paul insisted that all of his own epistles must come first, before Peter's - not just because Paul always needs to be first, but the other reason he gave is that the amanuensis (Peter's mentor, Silvanias) peppered the holy Ghost's original thoughts with unintended howlers. Paul didn't mind so much (and neither does Grudem) that the book of 1 PETER is addressed to "Dearly elected strangers" ("eklektos paropidEmos"). More problematic is that Peter's first epistle invites ridicule, beginning as it does with a terribly rude allusion to those post-crucifixion holes in the Lord's thorn-pierced brow, and nail-pierced hands and feet, and sword-pierced side. Silvanius wrote it down, just so: "rhantismos haima i-Esous" ("Jesus, the human blood-sprinkling can" [1 Peter 1:1-2]). Which may seem like a stupid thing to say.

"Jesus!" prayed Paul (when he read that), "just how asynetos can this Cephas get?" (which led to an argument so fierce, between Peter and Paul, that it nearly got the Protestant secession off to an early start, fourteen hundred years ahead of schedule.

Rev. Grudem explains the metaphor: Jesus, by the time the Romans and Jews got done with him, was like one of those adjustable nozzles on a modern garden hose, one who "turned every hardship into a tool for ... the blood ceremonially sprinkled on the people themselves" (p. 6). Which makes sense, if you think about it.

Even the most conservative Bible scholars, Grudem included, concede that Simon Peter Bar-Jonas, a.k.a. Cephas (the "Blockhead"), a.k.a. St. Peter, was unable to match Paul's fine literary style. But I thank God for that. Here a few representative nuggets from Saint Peter's epistles, translated word for word, from the Greek:

* "For unto us did the prophets minister the things which [...] the holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, which things the angels desire to look into, which is why ye must wear a girdle around the loins of your brain" (1 Peter 1:12-13).

* "He that is blind cannot see afar off." (2 Peter 1:9)

* "Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that it will not be long now before I must stop wearing a tent." (2 Peter 1:13-14)

In 1969, I overheard one translator of the New International Version remark that he lay awake nights wondering how to make St. Peter's prose "less infelicitous" (i.e., less funny in English than in Greek). Rev. Grudem has now solved that problem. I have read his commentary on 1 PETER from cover to cover, and trust me, there's not one good laugh in the entire book.

--L