HCSB: "Above all, maintain an intense love for each other, since love covers a multitude of sins."
Peter Achtemeier (page 294) explains that the opening of verse 8 here likely reflects the language of verse 7, which mentions the "end of all things." Hence, πρὸ πάντων probably is a rhetorical turn of phrase that draws the reader's attention back to the previous verse, but more importantly, it emphasizes the importance and surpassing value of love--especially given the times.
Peter focuses on love for the Christian community (τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς) but this does not mean a Christian can't love those outside of the local or universal ecclesia: Jesus taught that the second greatest command is to love one's neighbor and this does not seem to be limited to one's Christian brother or sister.
Achtemeier connects 1 Peter 4:8 with 1 Peter 1:22, which uses the adverbial expression "love one another intensely." By employing the words, ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, Peter refers to the act of loving one's spiritual siblings fervently. Ceslas Spicq thinks Peter is referring to intensive love that Christians should have for one another. WT publications often have pointed to the meaning "outstretched" for the adjective ἐκτενῆ in 1 Peter 4:8 and the definition "outstretchedly" for 1 Peter 1:22. The act of stretching out fabric has been utilized to illustrate this concept.
BDAG Entry: ἐκτενής, ές ⟦ektenḗs⟧ (Aeschyl.; Polyb. 22, 5, 4; ins [s. on ἐκτένεια]; PTebt 24, 45; 3 Macc 3:10; 5:29; Philo; Just., D. 107, 2 ἐκτενοῦς ὀλολυγμοῦ) pert. to being persevering, with implication that one does not waver in one’s display of interest or devotion, eager, earnest, comp. ἐκτενέστερος (IGR IV, 293 II, 38) Ac 12:5 v.l. ἐκτενῆ τὴν δέησιν ποιεῖσθαι make earnest supplication 1 Cl 59:2 (UPZ 110, 46 [164 b.c.] τὴν ἐκτενεστάτην ποιήσασθαι πρόνοιαν). ἐκτενῆ ὑπὸ πάντων προσευχὴν γενέσθαι AcPl Ha 6, 6f. τὴν ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχειν keep affection constant 1 Pt 4:8. μετ’ ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας w. constant gentleness 1 Cl 58:2; 62:2.—DELG s.v. τανυ- etc. E p. 1092. M-M. TW. Spicq.
Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament): Fervent This English adjective is defined as: “Having or showing great emotion or warmth” (American Heritage Dictionary, 485). But the Greek word here, ektenēs (only here in NT) has a somewhat different connotation. It comes from the verb ekteinō, “stretch out”; so it literally means “stretched out.” C. E. B. Cranfield says that it “suggests rather the taut muscle of strenuous and
sustained effort, as of an athlete” (First Epistle of Peter, p. 95). A good translation is “unfailing” (RSV).
Reference: Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
6 comments:
Do you believe Galatians 3:20 is a good verse to argue against Trinitarians? God is simply not Three persons, but one person. Galatians 3:20 establishes that to be crystal clear and where mediator implies more than 1 person - since you can't mediate without another person. However, God is contrast to that - Hence, "God is one" - So God can't be more than 1 person.
Galatians 3:20 NIV: “A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one”.
μεσίτης ἑνὸς= [person] https://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/3-20.htm
Acknowledging the verse to it’s fully understanding - it lacks a consistency in the case of where mediator imples more than one person - therefore God would also be similar to the case - but that doesn’t happen at all. It begs to differ - going against the Trinity doctrine where God is 3 persons one God. In that verse, it denotes one person only - not multipersonal - hence, 3. Also, setting aside Galatians 3:20 for a moment, We 1 Timothy 2:5 where the text mentions "mediation between two parties," God and men, and the mediator is the one who died as a man, Jesus. So the entire argument is against 1 Timothy 2:5, and also Galatians 3:20 which makes it clear that a mediator requires more than one person, but God does not. Since Jesus is our mediator, and we are the "men" for whom he mediates, then he can't be the God for whom he mediates (the Father), nor can be the "men" for whom he mediates. He is the mediator, which requires more than one person to mediate, which he has according to 1 Timothy 2:5. Galatians 3:20 is clearly presenting the OT concept of mediation in relation to Jesus' mediation of Christians, which he makes especially clear in verse 26, but also the whole chapter leading up to it, including verse 20.
@JLM
The fact that God is the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit does not 'sum up the number of gods' (1+1+1 = 3, which would be tritheism), but rather declares the existence of three persons (who are not separate Gods, but have one, common nature), always keeping in mind that 'there are not three gods, there is only one God.' The three persons are one God, not three gods, because the essence, nature, and divinity of the three are one, and everything is one where the opposition of relation does not prevent it.
No one speaks of three different Gods. The fact that, along with the Bible, we name three different persons as God, does not equate to the statement that there are three separate Gods. Since these persons are not three different Gods, as their Godhood, their essence is one, common. The Trinity only refers to the divine persons, not to the one divine essence; that is, there is only one God. What is singular in God, we call divine essence or nature; what is threefold in God, we call person or subject. Thus, God is three persons in one essence, while Jesus Christ is one (divine) person in two (divine and human) natures. The diversity of persons in no way contradicts the unity of the essence, although it is true that without revelation we would have no concept that 'personality' and 'essence' do not always coincide. From the fact that in us, humans, the two coincide, it does not follow that the two are conceptually the same thing. There would only be a conceptual contradiction if we said: one essence and yet three essences; one person and yet three persons. But: one essence and three persons is no more a contradiction than saying three people and one family, or a hundred soldiers and one company. We do not identify the three with the one, but the three divine persons with the one God. It is not possible to demonstrate a conceptual contradiction in this.
The text of Deuteronomy 6:4 is: 'Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one.' In the Bible, YHWH is 'one' in the sense that there is no other: the only one. So the text does not claim that God is one person in essence, but that there is only one God. How many persons exist in that God is another question. Monotheism is the common confession of faith of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:39, 6:4, Isaiah 43:10) and the Trinitarian apostles (1 Timothy 2:5, James 2:19). The translation 'God is one' is may give rise to misunderstanding, servile translation of "heis ho theos". The meaning of the Greek truncated sentence without the verb to be is this: one God exists - and not many, so this scripture can only be opposed to polytheism, not to the monotheistic doctrine of the Trinity. The masculine version of the Greek numeral (heis, mia, hen) (heis) refers to the singularity of the person; if the neuter hen were in its place, it would be about some kind of unity or one kind of being.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm
JLM,
I would encourage you to read Meyer's NT Commentary and his comments on Gal. 3:20 at biblehub.
Admittedly, while I've thought about this verse before, I've never used it to refute Trinitarianism. However, the passage has come up in the history of exegesis and Meyer briefly discusses this point. It's also possible that Paul is not just saying there is one God, but that God is one subject [person]. Trinitarians obviously would not like this implication, but Meyer discusses this point.
Eph. 4:6 is another verse that shows the Father is the one God (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6).
Nincsnevem, you said Galatians 3:20 is truncated and does not have the "to be" verb. Granted, it does not have the infinitive, but Paul does employ ἐστιν.
EGF,
This is what it says: The explanation of the words, which in themselves are simple enough, is accordingly as follows: “But the mediator—not to leave unnoticed an inference which might possibly be drawn to the prejudice of the promises from the ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου just said—but the mediator, that is, any mediator, does not belong to a single person, but intervenes between two or more; God, on the other hand, is a single person, and not a plurality. Is it now—when these two propositions are applied in concreto to the law and the promises—is it now to be thence inferred that the law, which was given through a mediator, and in which therefore there took part more subjects than one, in point of fact two (namely, God and Israel), between whom the mediator had to deal, is opposed to the divine promises, in which the same one God, who in the case of the law acted through a mediator and so implied two parties, acted directly? God forbid! From this point of difference in the divine bestowal of the law and the promises, by no means is any such conclusion to be arrived at to the prejudice of the latter, as if now, through the law mediatorially given by the one God, another divine mode of justification were to be made valid.”
So, it's interesting that Meyer says God is one person, which opposes the Trinitarian doctrine, in which God is one essence, 3 hypostasis - clearly not Trinitarian-like. I think it's solid evidence to see how a Trinitarian God model is contrasted by the latter of the verse itself because it already contrasts the fact that it can't be multipersonal like a mediator that requires more than one person, just like the Greek in bible hub states.
Nincsnevem,
If you would like to discuss about the Trinity doctrine regarding exegesis, then add me on Discord: realjlm
I'm not advertising by the way Edgar, just trying to let him know instead of coming here and discussing in one of your articles that is not related to the topic with what's being spoken about in the comment section.
JLM,
Yeah, I thought what Meyer said was useful and he shows that Trinitarians struggled with this verse when challenged. I appreciate you respecting the parameters of discussion here, but I would like to hear what results you get if you bring this point up to other Trinitarians. Best regards.
Post a Comment