For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.
I'm thankful for your work in writing up these thoughtful analyses, Terry!
Once you look for teachings that frame us as being precious in God's eyes and destined for glory, you can find many. Isn't it strange how we resist those teachings? As for your thanks, it's my pleasure. God bless you.
"Although I’m not an educated in Greek, it seems to me that word for “race” is different from what might be translated “ethnicity” (Greek: ethnos) or a “population” (Greek: laos), or even the “public” (Greek: demos). Race/Genos is often used to refer to an actual species, or bloodline.":
I am somewhat familiar with the Greek, as you know, and this is an interesting passage to sort out. I think you have the idea.
It begins in the Greek the same as it does in the English (I'm using the ESV because I have a matching commentary, ESV EC12 Heb-Rev), "But you are a chosen race," and in the Greek there is "chosen race", γένος ἐκλεκτόν, and yes γένος (genos), "race". And it is different from ἔθνος (ethnos), which appears soon afterward (demonstrating that as distinct), and finally ἔθνος ἅγιον (ethnos hagion), "holy nation".
So right away we have "race" and "nation", not the same. λαὸς (laos) appears next, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, "people for possession". "his" (or "God's" in the NASB) is added for clarity. There's no genitive there in the Greek, and "own" would appear to be implied by the word for "possession".
Now about γένος (genos). ESV EC12 comments "(an echo of Isaiah 43:3, 20–21)" and later "This kind of “race” (genos) has nothing to do with ethnicity precisely because this race is composed of every ethnicity. It is a spiritual race, a chosen race, defined not by color or culture but by creed. This race is defined by the One in whom we believe: Jesus."
My usual dictionaries (BDAG, TDNT) aren't much help here with γένος. I can see what looks to me like some confusion among them in reference to 1 Pet. 2:9. Liddell & Scott does better with definitions I and III, referencing Homer, Plato, and such (lots of abbreviations, and this is only the "race" parts):
γένος, εος, τό, (γί-γνομαι) race, stock, family, Hom., etc.; absol. in acc., ἐξἸθάκης γένος εἰμί from Ithaca I am by race, Od.; in Att. with the Art., ποδαπὸς τὸ γένος εἶ Ar.; so in dat., γένει πολίτης Dem.; οἱἐν γένει = συγγενεῖς, Soph.; opp. to οἱ ἔξω γένους, Id.; γένους εἶναί τινος to be of his race, Id.
III. a race, in regard to number, γ. ἀνδρῶν mankind, Il.; ἡμιόνων, βοῶν γ. Hom., etc.:—a clan or house, Lat. gens, Hdt.; at Athens as a subdivision of the φρατρία, Plat.:—a tribe, as a subdivision of ἔθνος, Hdt.:—a caste, Id., Plat.: of animals, a breed, Hdt.
…
It's been a very long day for me, and reading Greek often makes me sleepy. Enjoy and good night!
Are we sure genos means race and not genus? Race as I understand denotes differences within a genus. And makes more sense when we apply this understanding to being set apart, reciving new bodies, etc. Starting to interpret the bible like this seems to prime the pump for darker justifications. I just really want to make sure we're interpreting scripture in its context, and not with the racial overtones contemporary society has associated with genos/genus.
I don’t think I understand your point here. If it were “genus” why would it be better? English translators simply use the word “race” to translate.
It’s used in the Bible to refer to the race of a person (Syrian, Alexandrian, etc). It’s used for literal offspring, descendents, etc.
None of that is relevant in this case, as I said, it’s not literally a race of DNA or blood. At no point am I arguing that, but it would be funny to see somebody try to twist it that way.
It's very possible I'm splitting hairs. It would be better because genus has not been perverted by scientific racism from the pass 100 or so years. It also might actually end up being a more accurate way to translate the original Greek in the context of being a new creature or being set apart. More over, it might actually be more ACCURATE to translate this way, Christ lived until around 33 AD, the concept of "Race" didn't exist until the 1500s, and was perverted in the late 1800, early 1900 with scientific racism. So respectfully, idk how we come up with the translation of genus meaning race unless our translations come from 1500s-1900s (highly likely). If that is so we are probably not reading or interpreting the bible in it's context and likely coming to some different conclusions here. It's bad hermeneutics. I also believe this interpretation de-legitimizes and heads off any arguments that the bible validates as a concept or condones the idea of racial superiority. You can't come to that conclusion if your dialectic position is "I am a new create in christ" not "I'm a different, better creature in Christ".
I humbly feel this essay's treatment of the term race is liable to be abused in justifying the concept of racial superiority. If the bible is the inerrant word of God, God said "species", not "race". Moreover, it's probably a uniquely human thing that we would argue superiority over one another, taking our sight of Christ and what complete and utter jokes we are compared to him. We may as well keep our mouths shut and keep our minds and hearts focused on him.
Well, it's a good question. I was genuinely worn out when I finished writing my comment, after a day featuring a steady stream of interruptions, and I had a full night's sleep afterward, which is rare, so let's see.
I depend heavily upon decent commentaries, and I was already studying 1 Peter because I am in a group study of it, but I didn't find much to choose from for 1 Peter. Only the group leader and I even look at commentaries, the rest of the group predictably offering feelings and opinions and study Bible notes, preaching according to their favorite YouTube celebrities, and talking about themselves, or listening quietly.
This and 2 Peter are the only NT books for which I didn't already have at least one commentary. It wasn't particularly encouraging to find this remark in connection with the WBC 1 Peter commentary: "First Peter is often neglected as insignificant compared to Paul’s letters." Yes, I can see that and I suspect that the economics of the Bible-related publishing industry are involved.
So I finally bought the WBC commentary. I won't quote from its general discussion of v. 9 (I'm still shuddering), which the author, J. Ramsey Michaels, translates as "You, however, are a chosen race, the King’s priesthood, a holy nation, a people destined for vindication.", but he writes this about γένος ἐκλεκτόν:
-----
γένος ἐκλεκτόν (“a chosen race”). The first and the last of the titles come from Isa 43:20–21, the second and third from Exod 19:6 (Elliott’s suggestion, 142, that the introductory ὑμεῖς δέ is also drawn from Exod 19:6 LXX is doubtful). γένος ἐκλεκτόν echoes the LXX of Isa 43:20, τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν. Within 1 Peter, the use of ἐκλεκτόν here for the Christian community as a whole is a corollary of its use for Christ the “living Stone” in vv 4 and 6, recalling as well the ἐκλεκτοῖς of Peter’s initial address to his readers as individuals in 1:1.
Possibly (although by no means certainly) on the basis of either this passage or Isa 43:20 itself, γένος (“race” or “stock”) became in the second century a collective designation for Christians throughout the world: eg, MartPol 3.2: “the God-loving and God-fearing race of the Christians”; MartPol 14.1: “the whole race of the righteous” (cf 17.1); Diogn 1: “this new race” (καινὸν τοῦτο γένος); Tertullian, ad Nat 1.8 and The Preaching of Peter in Clement of Alexandria, Strom 6.5.41 (“the third race.,” in distinction from Gentiles and Jews; cf 1 Cor 10:32). Like MartPol, but unlike the others, 1 Peter has no particular interest in the Gentiles or Jews as “races” distinct from the community of Christians. His single focus at this point is the Christian community itself.
-----
I remember reading "MartPol" (Martyrdom of Polycarp) -- how could I forget -- but now I am feeling sleepy again. "Are we sure genos means race and not genus?" I'm not. What seems clear to me is that the various distinct terms appearing in this passage were written with distinct meanings in mind. I am going to let this settle while I weigh against it other material I am researching.
Thank you for your comment. I think I see your point about "race" and "contemporary society". I was raised differently and did not understand in those days (1950s-60s) what was going on. A lament in 1967 from a Black high school friend whose name I still remember and whose family was about to return to the U.S. south from where we were living in Japan at the time (Air Force brats), helped bring it into focus.
1 Thessalonians 5:7-11
For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.
I'm thankful for your work in writing up these thoughtful analyses, Terry!
Once you look for teachings that frame us as being precious in God's eyes and destined for glory, you can find many. Isn't it strange how we resist those teachings? As for your thanks, it's my pleasure. God bless you.
I really needed to hear this right now. Thank you!
"Although I’m not an educated in Greek, it seems to me that word for “race” is different from what might be translated “ethnicity” (Greek: ethnos) or a “population” (Greek: laos), or even the “public” (Greek: demos). Race/Genos is often used to refer to an actual species, or bloodline.":
I am somewhat familiar with the Greek, as you know, and this is an interesting passage to sort out. I think you have the idea.
Ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, …
It begins in the Greek the same as it does in the English (I'm using the ESV because I have a matching commentary, ESV EC12 Heb-Rev), "But you are a chosen race," and in the Greek there is "chosen race", γένος ἐκλεκτόν, and yes γένος (genos), "race". And it is different from ἔθνος (ethnos), which appears soon afterward (demonstrating that as distinct), and finally ἔθνος ἅγιον (ethnos hagion), "holy nation".
So right away we have "race" and "nation", not the same. λαὸς (laos) appears next, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, "people for possession". "his" (or "God's" in the NASB) is added for clarity. There's no genitive there in the Greek, and "own" would appear to be implied by the word for "possession".
Now about γένος (genos). ESV EC12 comments "(an echo of Isaiah 43:3, 20–21)" and later "This kind of “race” (genos) has nothing to do with ethnicity precisely because this race is composed of every ethnicity. It is a spiritual race, a chosen race, defined not by color or culture but by creed. This race is defined by the One in whom we believe: Jesus."
My usual dictionaries (BDAG, TDNT) aren't much help here with γένος. I can see what looks to me like some confusion among them in reference to 1 Pet. 2:9. Liddell & Scott does better with definitions I and III, referencing Homer, Plato, and such (lots of abbreviations, and this is only the "race" parts):
γένος, εος, τό, (γί-γνομαι) race, stock, family, Hom., etc.; absol. in acc., ἐξἸθάκης γένος εἰμί from Ithaca I am by race, Od.; in Att. with the Art., ποδαπὸς τὸ γένος εἶ Ar.; so in dat., γένει πολίτης Dem.; οἱἐν γένει = συγγενεῖς, Soph.; opp. to οἱ ἔξω γένους, Id.; γένους εἶναί τινος to be of his race, Id.
III. a race, in regard to number, γ. ἀνδρῶν mankind, Il.; ἡμιόνων, βοῶν γ. Hom., etc.:—a clan or house, Lat. gens, Hdt.; at Athens as a subdivision of the φρατρία, Plat.:—a tribe, as a subdivision of ἔθνος, Hdt.:—a caste, Id., Plat.: of animals, a breed, Hdt.
…
It's been a very long day for me, and reading Greek often makes me sleepy. Enjoy and good night!
Are we sure genos means race and not genus? Race as I understand denotes differences within a genus. And makes more sense when we apply this understanding to being set apart, reciving new bodies, etc. Starting to interpret the bible like this seems to prime the pump for darker justifications. I just really want to make sure we're interpreting scripture in its context, and not with the racial overtones contemporary society has associated with genos/genus.
I don’t think I understand your point here. If it were “genus” why would it be better? English translators simply use the word “race” to translate.
It’s used in the Bible to refer to the race of a person (Syrian, Alexandrian, etc). It’s used for literal offspring, descendents, etc.
None of that is relevant in this case, as I said, it’s not literally a race of DNA or blood. At no point am I arguing that, but it would be funny to see somebody try to twist it that way.
Here’s a concordance study of the term:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1085.htm
It's very possible I'm splitting hairs. It would be better because genus has not been perverted by scientific racism from the pass 100 or so years. It also might actually end up being a more accurate way to translate the original Greek in the context of being a new creature or being set apart. More over, it might actually be more ACCURATE to translate this way, Christ lived until around 33 AD, the concept of "Race" didn't exist until the 1500s, and was perverted in the late 1800, early 1900 with scientific racism. So respectfully, idk how we come up with the translation of genus meaning race unless our translations come from 1500s-1900s (highly likely). If that is so we are probably not reading or interpreting the bible in it's context and likely coming to some different conclusions here. It's bad hermeneutics. I also believe this interpretation de-legitimizes and heads off any arguments that the bible validates as a concept or condones the idea of racial superiority. You can't come to that conclusion if your dialectic position is "I am a new create in christ" not "I'm a different, better creature in Christ".
I humbly feel this essay's treatment of the term race is liable to be abused in justifying the concept of racial superiority. If the bible is the inerrant word of God, God said "species", not "race". Moreover, it's probably a uniquely human thing that we would argue superiority over one another, taking our sight of Christ and what complete and utter jokes we are compared to him. We may as well keep our mouths shut and keep our minds and hearts focused on him.
(Written before seeing Terry's reply)
Well, it's a good question. I was genuinely worn out when I finished writing my comment, after a day featuring a steady stream of interruptions, and I had a full night's sleep afterward, which is rare, so let's see.
I depend heavily upon decent commentaries, and I was already studying 1 Peter because I am in a group study of it, but I didn't find much to choose from for 1 Peter. Only the group leader and I even look at commentaries, the rest of the group predictably offering feelings and opinions and study Bible notes, preaching according to their favorite YouTube celebrities, and talking about themselves, or listening quietly.
This and 2 Peter are the only NT books for which I didn't already have at least one commentary. It wasn't particularly encouraging to find this remark in connection with the WBC 1 Peter commentary: "First Peter is often neglected as insignificant compared to Paul’s letters." Yes, I can see that and I suspect that the economics of the Bible-related publishing industry are involved.
So I finally bought the WBC commentary. I won't quote from its general discussion of v. 9 (I'm still shuddering), which the author, J. Ramsey Michaels, translates as "You, however, are a chosen race, the King’s priesthood, a holy nation, a people destined for vindication.", but he writes this about γένος ἐκλεκτόν:
-----
γένος ἐκλεκτόν (“a chosen race”). The first and the last of the titles come from Isa 43:20–21, the second and third from Exod 19:6 (Elliott’s suggestion, 142, that the introductory ὑμεῖς δέ is also drawn from Exod 19:6 LXX is doubtful). γένος ἐκλεκτόν echoes the LXX of Isa 43:20, τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν. Within 1 Peter, the use of ἐκλεκτόν here for the Christian community as a whole is a corollary of its use for Christ the “living Stone” in vv 4 and 6, recalling as well the ἐκλεκτοῖς of Peter’s initial address to his readers as individuals in 1:1.
Possibly (although by no means certainly) on the basis of either this passage or Isa 43:20 itself, γένος (“race” or “stock”) became in the second century a collective designation for Christians throughout the world: eg, MartPol 3.2: “the God-loving and God-fearing race of the Christians”; MartPol 14.1: “the whole race of the righteous” (cf 17.1); Diogn 1: “this new race” (καινὸν τοῦτο γένος); Tertullian, ad Nat 1.8 and The Preaching of Peter in Clement of Alexandria, Strom 6.5.41 (“the third race.,” in distinction from Gentiles and Jews; cf 1 Cor 10:32). Like MartPol, but unlike the others, 1 Peter has no particular interest in the Gentiles or Jews as “races” distinct from the community of Christians. His single focus at this point is the Christian community itself.
-----
I remember reading "MartPol" (Martyrdom of Polycarp) -- how could I forget -- but now I am feeling sleepy again. "Are we sure genos means race and not genus?" I'm not. What seems clear to me is that the various distinct terms appearing in this passage were written with distinct meanings in mind. I am going to let this settle while I weigh against it other material I am researching.
Thank you for your comment. I think I see your point about "race" and "contemporary society". I was raised differently and did not understand in those days (1950s-60s) what was going on. A lament in 1967 from a Black high school friend whose name I still remember and whose family was about to return to the U.S. south from where we were living in Japan at the time (Air Force brats), helped bring it into focus.
I really enjoyed this!