1 Peter

1:1 already a solemn, ominous note that I don't find in Paul's writings--even when he was writing about his own iminent death.


1:2 By now a familiar greeting.  Was Paul copying Peter when he adopted this greeting, or was it just colloquial?


1:5-6 We can look back on this argument and judge it to be specious, I suppose.  The last time is near! This suffering is temporary!  For how long have religious orators been offering some version of those lines?  Theologically speaking, of course, both statements can be seen as true, but it seems a little disingenuous.


1:8 This book is clearly meant for a later audience than previous books, addressed as it is to a second generation of believers, who have only second hand knowledge of Christ.  This persents some chronological  and/or authorial difficulties however.  Isn't Peter supposed to have died before Paul?


1:10-12 "Peter" is laying it on pretty thickly here, I must say.  Surely it's an overstatement to say that the first century audience is the fulfillment of all sort of divine plans, and that the angels themselves are jealous of their knowledge.


1:18 Peter's rather dismissive references to Jewish tradition also argue in favor of a second generation audience, as contrasted with the reverent tone earlier authors took.


1:20 By no measire can the first century be labelled "the end of the ages" in retrospect.


1:24 Ok, I'm really intrigued by this.  Of course this is not the first time that the version I'm reading (NRSV) sets a section of in stanzas, but it's not clear exactly what this signifies.  It's either indicitave of the quotative or the poetic properties of the original text.  If this is a quote, from where?  If this is poetic in a way that can be perceived through the veil of ancient Greek, could it really be the voice of a fisherman?


21-3 The three statements here are each interesting in their own right, but do not quite seem to relate to each other.  For one thing, why is "Peter" putting such stron emphasis on things that should be self evident?  Malice is a pretty strong word.  Are the the Christians of Asia Minor really in need of a reminder not to be malicious?  Are they really so juvenile?  I especially like that he includes an admonition not to be insincere.  I'm not sure I have seen a similiar directive elsewhere in the Bible.  Now that I look at it more closely, it does tie in rather nicely to the next verse after all.  After reminding them of what should be bare minimums, he them tells to to long for spiritual milk like newborns.  It's as if he's saying, "Quit acting like such infants.  If you are going to be infants, at least drink your milk."


2:6 Here it's clearer exactly why the verse is set poetically:  it's a quotation from Isaiah.  Why was 1:24 set in the same way then? 


2:10 and here a more telling quote from Paul, which makes the dating/timing of this book even more suspect in my mind.


2:16 In what sense does he urge them to live as a free people?  As one free from the Mosaic Law?  From obligation to secular law? And in what sense it that meant to contrast with the fact that they are servants of God?


2:18 oooohhhhh he's talking in part to slaves, who are in spirit free, but in law not so much.


2:23 I found this reasoning a bit suspect at first reading.  Is he really suggesting that the unjust beating slaves endure are analogous to the beating Christ underwent?  But yeah, I guess he is.  And I guess it holds up logically, but it still rubs me strangely for some reason.


3:1 By the same logic: if a man beats his wife, she should just put up with it.  Wow has this verse ever been taken out of its rhetorical context . . .


3:16 This is the second mention of reverence, a trait that I never had much use for.  It's a running theme of this section, and although I can see the connection to a Christlike mind (as in 3:8), I question whether it's not being overgeneralized here.  What "Peter" is suggesting is not reverence for God, or Christ, or even each other.  But reverence to everyone who might pass on the street.  Surely there is some language barrier that is obscuring the original meaning of what is here translated "reverence".


4:1 "Peter" tries to give Paul a rune for his rhetorical money here, emplying a rather bald appeal to his audeince's ego, but unlike Paul's similar rhetorical turns, this has no logical underpinning.  The argument that suffering is the absolution of sin is really unsuuportable, logically or theologically.


4:7 It is impossible to count how often this tactic has been employed by unscrupulous preachers throughout history.  "The end is near" persists as a theological fraud because of its undeniable effectiveness.


5:13 Now this is an interesting turn.  Babylon?  This statement of "Peter" has been the subject of much discussion among schoalrs, whether it is code for Rome (which seems a bit unnecessary) or Babylon in Egypt (possible) or even, I suppose, actual Babylon (unlikely).  At any rate, the entire book smells of demagoguery, of the flavor that I hesistate to ascribe to the Biblical figure of Simon Peter, whom I perefer to think of as a man whose chief virute was his simplicity, not his ability to work up a crowd.