1. 1 Peter: Abington New Testament Commentaries [ANTC]
    M. Eugene Boring
    Abingdon Press / 1999 / Trade Paperback
    Our Price$22.49 Retail Price$24.99 Save 10% ($2.50)
    5.0 out of 5 stars for 1 Peter: Abington New Testament Commentaries [ANTC]. View reviews of this product. 1 Reviews
    Availability: In Stock
    Stock No: WW7058546
5 Stars Out Of 5
5 out of 5
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Quality:
5 out Of 5
(5 out of 5)
Value:
5 out Of 5
(5 out of 5)
Meets Expectations:
5 out Of 5
(5 out of 5)
100%
of customers would recommend this product to a friend.
SORT BY:
SEE:
Displaying items 1-1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
  1. Neil
    Safford, AZ
    Age: 55-65
    Gender: Male
    5 Stars Out Of 5
    Quite academic
    October 8, 2020
    Neil
    Safford, AZ
    Age: 55-65
    Gender: Male
    Quality: 5
    Value: 5
    Meets Expectations: 5
    M. Eugene Boring's commentary on 1 Peter is very rigorous and probably beyond the understandable reach of an average church-goer. I would not recommend it as a supplementary text for an average adult Bible class at church.

    It is very academic in its presentation. I will mention a few features that may be of interest to potential readers and that may help you decide whether or you not you want to take a crack at it yourself.

    Boring holds the work of 1 Peter (and 2 Peter and the disputed pauline letters) to be pseudepigraphical (written AS IF they were written by the named author but by an unsigned author who believed himself qualified to write in the name of the venerated apostle). Boring still holds these canonical works to be authoritative scripture. For one, the original recipients of the letter were aware of the actual origin of the letter and they believed the author--or commissioning eldership--sufficiently familiar with the apostle's teaching to write in his name. Boring really breaks down the evidence pseudonymity in his arguments.

    Once we are able to dispense with the [sacred cow] assumption of petrine authorship, we are able to read the text differently and with real modern-church application in ways we would otherwise not be able to.

    Some of the gems in this commentary:

    Boring's discussion of 1 Peter 2:1-3 concludes the verses to reflect a customary baptismal liturgy (or at least a tight connection). "[T]he presence of baptismal overtones emphasizes that the meaning of being a Christian as having-been-baptized continued to play a role in the self-understanding of Christians struggling to come to terms with their role in society" (92).

    On 1 Peter 2:4-10, ("The stone that the builders rejected," etc.) Boring points out 1 Peter's Old Testament hermeneutic as it compares with Paul's. "While Paul agonizes over the relation of Israel and church (Rom 9-11), and appropriates Israel's Scriptures only secondarily as referring to and addressing the church, the passage before us is an excellent example of 1 Peter's view and practice throughout, whereby the seamless continuity between the people of God in the Bible and his own church situation allows him to hear the texts as directly addressed to the church, without allegory, typology, prophecy/fulfillment, or any such hermeneutic. This was not possible for Paul in his time and place, but a generation later, the (apparently Gentile) author of 1 Peter betrays no awareness of a problem of relating the church of his time to the Israel of the Bible or non-Christian Jews in his own setting" (95).

    Commenting on the same passage, Boring notes 1 Peter's view of the purpose of the church. "Like the Israel of the Bible and history, the church as the people of God is called into being not for its own sake, but as an expression of the divine mission to the world, and is itself charged with a mission. The gift becomes a responsibility" (101). Wow! Think of the implications! God gifts each of us with talents for ministry and the gifting becomes our obligation. Using our gifts is not optional.

    There are other gems; but this little posting is already getting lengthy.

    One point that Boring made in several places (84, 122, 152, 173) is that 1 Peter uses God language for Christ and suffering language for God in a way that God and Christ sort-a blur together. I scrutinized Boring's proof-texts and I just could not see it. Either I am missing something or Boring is seeing something that may not be there. He did make a point of this blur when describing the role of elders in 1 Peter 5. "The presbyters have portions of God's flock assigned to them for which they are responsible, and the members of the flock are to be subordinate to their authorized shepherds. But in every case this picture is saved from being a merely from-the-top-down authoritarian hierarchy. The figures of God and Christ are not kept distinct, but modulate into each other. So also the line between apostle and presbyter is not distinct, for the apostle is a co-presbyter, and the presbyters function by and with apostolic authority. Christ the chief shepherd shares the shepherding ministry directly with the presbyters, who are accountable to him" (173).

    I will continue to chew on some of the things he mentioned. It is heavy on content.
Displaying items 1-1 of 1
Page 1 of 1