{"id":19251,"date":"2019-05-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-05-29T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-071\/"},"modified":"2019-05-29T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-05-29T05:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-071","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-071\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 071"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[105],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19251","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-1-peter","series_event-the-coming-kingdom","sermon_service_type-wednesday-evenings","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Coming Kingdom 071","sermon_date":"20190529","sermon_month":"5","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":6754,"sermon_slides":6755,"sermon_mp3":6758,"sermon_id":"52919222317270","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":105,"chapter_and_verse":"2:9","sermon_transcript":"THE COMING KINGDOM\n\nEPISODE #71\n\nDr Andrew M Woods\n\nFirst Peter 2:9, our last study for this quarter before the summer break, returning 9-4-19.\u00a0 In the book I wrote, The Coming Kingdom<\/u><\/strong>, which is a topical organization of biblical material, we are in Chapter 20, and I got a call from someone this week who writes 1,000-page books and who is famous in the scholarly world, in the free grace circles, anyway.\u00a0 He had read my book and liked it; he didn\u2019t agree with everything, but that\u2019s okay.\u00a0 He said that he liked how I tackled all the passages that go against your position.\u00a0 I replied with a question, \u2018Can I get your voice on recording to share with my church because I think I have killed those poor people tracking them through all this material?\u2019\n\nAs you know, we are basically teaching the concept that the Kingdom is a postponed reality, and if that is true, then what about all the passages where people seem to gravitate the argument that we are in the Kingdom now?\u00a0 That is the work we are doing right now, and we are coming near the end of that section, but we have looked at alleged \u2018kingdom now\u2019 passages in the ministry of Christ in the book of Acts, writings of the Apostle Paul, and now we are wrapping up some of that biblical material by looking at alleged 'kingdom now' passages in the general letters and in the book of Revelation.\n\nLast week, we looked at Hebrews 12:28 and we were in the process of looking at 1 Peter 2:9, \u00a0\u201cBut you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.\u201d\u00a0 Do you recall where Peter is quoting from in this verse?\u00a0 He is quoting Exod 19:5,6 basically information that God had given to Israel at Mt Sinai, and it is there that God told the nation of Israel that they are a kingdom of priests.\u00a0 According to 'kingdom now' theology, because Exod 19 is quoted in 1 Peter 2:9 and because Exod 19 calls Israel a kingdom of priests because it is quoted in the New Testament, the church is therefore, the Kingdom. \u00a0In fact, this author, Paul J Achtemeir, is saying that the church is the new Israel:\u00a0 Replacement Theology.\u00a0 He says, \u201cThe two-fold description of the new community (1 Peter 2 5,9-10) shows by its language that the church has now [look at his language] taken over the role of Israel.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0To see things like that is very common, yet what we are teaching here is that the Kingdom is future, and the Church is an interruption in God's program for Israel; certainly not a replacement of it.\n\nHow would we handle 1 Peter 2:9?\u00a0 One of the things we talked about last time is that similarity is not the same thing as equality.\u00a0 Let\u2019s pretend that all the promises related to Israel in Exod 19 are quoted in 1 Peter 2:9 to the whole Church.\u00a0 Even that in and of itself would not prove 'kingdom now' theology.\u00a0 Peter\u2019s point could simply be that the Church is similar to Israel, but similarity is not the same thing as equality.\u00a0 Israel and the Church are very different but there are points of similarity.\u00a0 Both Israel and the Church are given a worldwide mission; both are God's representatives on earth; both are called to holiness; both are God's people, but that doesn\u2019t mean that the Church is Israel.\u00a0\u00a0 I used the analogy of the two cars in my garage; those cars look a lot alike but just because they're similar doesn\u2019t mean that car A is car B.\u00a0 My wife drives one car and I drive another, and you can tell the different between the two because mine is not always clean while hers is clean all the time.\u00a0 Just because two cars look alike doesn\u2019t mean that they're identical.\n\nSee slide on Two Issues<\/strong> concerning 1 Peter 2:9:\n
    \n \t
  1. Similarity is not equality<\/li>\n \t
  2. 1 Peter is not addressed to the Church at large<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\nLet me give you another way to handle 1 Peter:\u00a0 the above point B is helpful to studies in 1 Peter because most people misunderstand 1 Peter.\u00a0 My point here in item B above is that 1 Peter was not written to the whole Church, and I know that is a paradigm shift for many because 1 Peter is in the New Testament; it is a letter, therefore, 1 Peter is written to the whole Church.\u00a0 I want to show you tonight that 1 Peter was not written to the whole Church; it was written to a group within the Church.\u00a0 Am I saying that there is nothing in 1 Peter for us as Gentiles?\u00a0 Of course not, there are many applications to us; in fact, when reading 1 Peter, you will see things in there that you can directly apply to your life.\u00a0 What I am saying is that you cannot build a theology from a single verse in 1 Peter 2:9 to support the idea that somehow the Church has replaced Israel because 1 Peter 2:9 was never written to the whole church.\u00a0 It has a much narrower meaning, so that is the reason I am bringing this up.\n\nThis is counterintuitive to many so let me try to give you evidence for this.\u00a0 Look at evidence from 1 Peter itself, then I'll answer some arguments that people use to argue that 1 Peter is written to the whole Church.\u00a0 Then I will show you what the early church fathers believed, and then I'll bring it to a conclusion, explaining why this matters.\u00a0 The reason I am going into this is because there are statements out there like the one above by Paul J Achtemeier, who is building an entire theology on 1 Peter 2:9 and in the process, he is assuming that 1 Peter was written to the Church as a whole; it was not.\u00a0 It was written to a group within the Church.\u00a0 Who was 1 Peter to?\u00a0 It was written to believing Jews within the Church.\u00a0 If that is true, it undermines what Achtemeier is trying to do with 1 Peter 2:9.\n\nWhat is some of the evidence from 1 Peter itself?\u00a0\u00a0 There are six pieces of evidence.\u00a0 Look first at 1 Peter 1:1, \u201cPeter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen.\u201d\u00a0 Notice that most New Testament letters when written to the Church or the churches, will say, \u2018to the Church at Rome;\u2019 \u201cto the Church at Philippi;\u2019 to the Church at Colosse;\u2019 \u2018to the Churches in Galatia.\u2019\u00a0 Does Peter say that at all?\u00a0 No; he doesn\u2019t even say \u2018to the Church\u2019 or to the Churches of\u2026\u2019 That is our first clue that he is not writing to the Church.\u00a0 He is writing to a narrower group of people.\n\nA second piece of evidence in 1 Peter 1:1 is the word, \u2018scattered,\u2019 a translation of the Greek word, \u2018diaspora.\u2019\u00a0 Again notice 1 Peter 1:1, \u201cPeter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens scattered<\/u><\/strong> [diaspora<\/u><\/em><\/strong>] [and there I have the Greek noun translated for \u2018scattered\u2019 in brackets; diaspora]\u2026 Now when doing a word study on diaspora, that word always means the Jews, without exception<\/u><\/strong>!\u00a0 It is only used two other times in the New Testament; see the book of James, \u201cJames, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed [the Greek noun \u2018diaspora\u2019] \u2026\u201d it must be written to a Jewish audience because it is written to the twelve tribes.\u00a0 By the way, when you watch A&E and the History Channel, they will all tell you that the twelve tribes are lost, so they think that the northern scattering of the tribes by the Assyrians caused the twelve tribes to disappear 700 years before the time of Christ.\u00a0 That is odd because James didn\u2019t believe they were lost.\u00a0 Seven hundred years later, James is writing a book to the twelve tribes, but there you can clearly see that \u2018diaspora\u2019 or \u2018scattered\u2019 refers to the Jews.\u00a0 The word is only used one other time in John 7:35, Jesus uses the same noun, the diaspora, \u201cThe Jews then said to one another, \u201cWhere does this man intend to go that we will not find Him?\u00a0 He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is He?\u201d\u00a0 Jesus had told them that in a little while longer they would not see Him, and they misunderstood what He was saying.\u00a0 The Jews started to ask themselves, \u2018Where is He going; He must be going off into the dispersion?\u2019 In context, they're talking about the Jewish dispersion, the diaspora.\n\nThe Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, created about 150-200 years before the time of Christ because Alexander the Great, in the intertestamental period, had made the Greek language the known language of the entire world.\u00a0 Folks wanted to be able to read the Hebrew Bible in Greek, and the Hebrew Bible was not written originally in Greek but in Hebrew, and that is why we call it the Hebrew Bible; with a touch of Aramaic here and there.\u00a0 A Greek speaking person who wants to read the Hebrew Bible in Greek would have to read a translation, the Septuagint.\u00a0 In the Septuagint, I have the examples where \u2018diaspora\u2019 is used (see slide on Diaspora of 1 Peter 1:1).\u00a0 Diaspora always means the Jews.\n\nThen the writings Pseudepigraphical writings called the Apocrypha, are basically the historical books that we Protestants do not accept as inspired but when doing a word study of \u2018diaspora\u2019 in those books, \u2018diaspora\u2019 once again always refers to the Jews scattered outside of their land.\u00a0 Doing a word study will reveal that diaspora is a technical word always<\/em><\/strong> referring to Jews outside the land every single time.\u00a0 Thus, when Peter uses that noun, \u2018diaspora,\u2019 I think that he is using it in the exact same way. John MacArthur, in his MacArthur Study Bible, for whatever reason, tries to blunt the force of this argument, trying to say that the definite article, such as in front of nouns, such as \u2018the cat\u2019 with cat being the noun and the being the definite article, means that this book was written to Gentiles.\u00a0 He says that the definite article is found in John 7:35 and in James 1:1 and is not found here in 1 Peter 1:1, so somehow in his mind, it changes the meaning of \u2018diaspora\u2019 making it refer to the Gentiles.\u00a0 I am not sure of what his motivations are for saying that, but the fact of the matter is that the definite article whether there or not, never changes the meaning of a word; it may change the intensification of a word, but never its meaning.\u00a0 For example, the definite article is not found in front of the word, apostle, in 1 Peter 1:1 either.\u00a0 That doesn\u2019t change the fact that Peter was an apostle; it just doesn\u2019t intensify it by saying \u2018the<\/em><\/strong> apostle.\u2019\n\nI throw that in because so many believe that this book was written to Gentiles because of statements like the one in the MacArthur Study Bible, and I don't know why he is arguing that, and I don't think he has much of a linguistic argument.\n\nSo why do I think this was written to the Jews?\n
      \n \t
    1. It doesn\u2019t say \u2018the Church\u2019 or \u2018the Churches of\u2019<\/li>\n \t
    2. The word, \u2018diaspora,\u2019 always refers to the Jews outside the land everywhere else it is used, so why wouldn\u2019t it mean that here?<\/li>\n \t
    3. When going back to 1 Peter 1:1, Peter, uses not just \u2018diaspora\u2019 or \u2018scattered\u2019 but the word, \u2018aliens.\u2019 1 Peter 1:1, \u201cPeter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens \u00a0[parepid<\/em><\/u><\/strong>\u0113<\/u><\/em><\/strong>mois<\/u><\/em><\/strong>]<\/u><\/strong>, <\/u>scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen.\u201d\u00a0 When tracking down the word, \u2018aliens,\u2019 Peter also uses it in 1 Peter 2:11, \u201cBeloved, I urge you as aliens\u00a0 [parepid<\/em><\/u><\/strong>\u0113<\/u><\/em><\/strong>mois<\/u><\/em><\/strong>]<\/u><\/strong> and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.\u201d Aliens [parepid<\/em>\u0113<\/em>mois<\/em>] is only used three times in the New Testament, and only refers to Jews; it is used twice in the book of Peter, and one other time in Hebrews 11:13, so just as the word, \u2018scattered,\u2019 the word, \u2018aliens\u2019 also has a technical meaning indicating a word that always means the same thing everywhere it is used, meaning that aliens always means Jews.\u00a0 Since Peter uses that in 1 Peter 1:1 and in 1 Peter 2:11 is another reason that I believe he is writing to a Jewish audience.\u00a0 In fact, when looking at the word, parepid<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u0113<\/u><\/em><\/strong>mois<\/u><\/em><\/strong>,<\/u><\/strong> means:\u00a0 par<\/u><\/strong> means away in Greek; epi<\/u><\/strong> means from.\u00a0 In the last part of the word there, demois<\/u><\/strong>, it resembles the words, \u2018domestic\u2019 or \u2018democracy,\u2019 so that part of the word means \u2018home.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 The word, parepid<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u0113<\/u><\/em><\/strong>mois<\/u><\/em><\/strong> is a compound word.\u00a0 It is multiple words that make up a single word and when examining it piece by piece, it literally means \u2018away from home.\u2019\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t that be a great description of the Jews at the time here that Peter is writing since many of them had been scattered and pushed out of their homeland through the persecution of Saul in Acts 8, who became Paul in Acts 9?\u00a0 Why am I convinced that Peter is writing to a Jewish audience?\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t say \u2018church\u2019 or \u2018churches\u2019\u2014 he uses very specific words, \u2018diaspora\u2019 and \u2018aliens\u2019 which are only used of Jewish people.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n \n
        \n \t
      1. There is a fourth reason I believe that Peter is writing to a Jewish audience:\u00a0 Peter distinguishes his audience from the Gentiles; he carves them out separately from the Gentiles in two places, and in so doing, he is ethnically identifying that his audience is different than the Gentiles.\u00a0 If that is so, then his audience must be Jewish!\u00a0 Look at 1 Peter 2:12, \u201cKeep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles [ethnos]<\/em><\/u><\/strong>,\u2026What is a Gentile?\u00a0 A non-Jew, and he uses the word \u2018ethnos\u2019 for nations to distinguish his audience from the non-Jews.\u00a0 If he is distinguishing his audience from the non-Jews, then his audience must be Jewish.\u00a0 Notice 1 Peter 4:3, \u201cFor the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles [Greek noun, ethnos]<\/em><\/u><\/strong>, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.\u201d For the second time Peter distinguishes his audience from the non-Jewish Gentiles, which gives further impetus to the idea that the audience that he is writing to must be Jewish in nature.\u00a0 Many people, and this is where the MacArthur Study Bible goes, say \u2018Well, Gentiles means unbelievers; not necessarily mean non-Jews.\u2019 To that, I quote, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, who has done wonderful work in this area in his book, The Messianic Jewish Epistles, Ariel\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/u><\/strong>.\u00a0 His 1 Peter commentary and really in everything he has done in this commentary, I recommend to you, responds to the argument that Gentiles just means unbelievers says, \u201cHowever, there is no exegetical basis for such a conclusion.\u00a0 That meaning is not consistent with the normal usage found elsewhere in the New Testament (ie, Rom 11:11-14).\u00a0 The word Gentile<\/em> should be understood in its common, primary meaning as a reference to non-Jews.\u201d\u00a0 Looking up \u2018ethnos,\u2019 for example, BDAG, which stands for Bower, Denker, Arndt, and Gingrich, a linguist.\u00a0 BDAG is short for one of the leading Lexicons of the time; every vocation has certain code words it throws around.\u00a0 When you are working in any industry, retail, mechanic, policeman, shortened terms; abbreviations are used often or else it would take a longer time to communicate with one another.\u00a0 Theology is the same \u2014 we have certain dictionaries, one of them being BDAG per above, so looking up \u2018ethnos\u2019 in BDAG, it essentially means Gentiles; not unbelievers. When Peter says to keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, is not just saying keep your behavior excellent among believers but \u2018you Jews be different than the Gentiles.\u2019\u00a0 The fact that he is distinguishing his audience from the Gentiles indicates that he is writing to a non-Gentile audience, so the only way to write to a non-Gentile audience would be to address the Jews; that is who Peter is writing to \u2014 believing Jews in the diaspora.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n \n
          \n \t
        1. Going back to 1 Peter 2:9, \u201cBut you are a chosen race<\/u><\/strong>, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,<\/u><\/strong> a people <\/u><\/strong>for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light,\u201d observe the singular nouns here. Peter says to his audience, \u2018you are a race<\/u><\/strong>\u2019\u2014 race is a singular noun; a royal priesthood, a holy nation<\/u><\/strong>\u2014singular noun; a people<\/u><\/strong> \u2014 singular for God's own possession.\u00a0 That is a very poor description of the Church as a whole because the Church at large doesn\u2019t consist of a<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 We are made up of multiple races.\u00a0 The Church does not consist of a<\/em><\/strong> nation; we are made up of multiple nations.\u00a0 The church does not consist of a<\/em><\/strong> people, singular; we are made up of multiple peoples.\u00a0 The fact that the nouns are singular there indicates that he is addressing a<\/em><\/strong> race; a nation; a<\/em><\/strong> people; a<\/em><\/strong> race of people in the diaspora who are called aliens.\u00a0 He is addressing believing Jews.\u00a0 I think that if Peter is using this verse to describe the Church, he would have flunked basic ecclesiology.\u00a0 Peter did not take my ecclesiology class because in this class I taught that the Church is neither Jew nor Greek as Paul says, slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus per Gal 3:28.\u00a0 The Church is this great work of God that He has been doing for the past 2,000 years, and it doesn\u2019t consist merely of Americans or Israelis; it is made up of every racial group, so why would Peter when writing to the whole church use singular nouns?\u00a0 It makes no sense.\u00a0 It does make a lot of sense if you understand that he is addressing a narrow audience within the church:\u00a0 Hebrew Christians.\u00a0 By the way, notice in 1 Peter 2:9 that Peter calls his audience a nation<\/u><\/strong>.\u00a0 Is the Church a nation?\u00a0 The Church is not a nation because Paul specifically says of the Church, \u201c\u2026I will make you jealous [Israel] by that which is not a nation<\/u><\/strong>.\u00a0 See what God is doing in this present age as He pours out grace upon the Church?\u00a0 He is pouring out so much grace upon the Church that the angels per Eph 3:10 and 1 Peter 1:19 are stooping down to observe what is happening; they just can't believe the grace that we have.\u00a0 As that grace per John 1, \u2018grace upon grace is poured out upon the Church,\u2019 who is being provoked to jealousy?\u00a0 Unbelieving Israel.\u00a0 God has taken on another woman and is actually using the present age of grace to stimulate Israel to have a desire for the gospel which will be satisfied fully in the Tribulation once the Church is gone, but for now, God is at work in the Jewish people through His work in the Church by provoking them to jealousy.\u00a0 The instrument that He is using to provoke Israel to jealousy is specifically called, \u201cnot a nation.<\/u>\u201d\u00a0 <\/strong>The church is \u201cnot a nation.<\/u>\u201d\u00a0 <\/strong>So, if the Church is \u201cnot a nation,<\/u>\u201d <\/strong>then how could Peter be calling his audience, the Church, a nation<\/u><\/strong>?\u00a0 My answer to that is that he isn\u2019t talking to the whole church.\u00a0 He is talking to a narrow group of Hebrew Christians within the Church.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n \n
            \n \t
          1. This takes us to my sixth reason why I think that Peter is addressing a Jewish audience. It has to do with the book of Galatians.\u00a0 Gal 2:7-8 gives Peter's job description, \u201cBut on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, [the Gentiles because Paul said that he takes the gospel to the uncircumcised] just as Peter had been to the circumcised, [the Jews] (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles).\u201d So, Paul says that he is the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter is the apostle to the Jews.\u00a0 If Peter is the apostle to the Jews, is it a big shock that his two books would be addressed to the Jews?\u00a0 It shouldn\u2019t be.\u00a0 Again, people balk at this; they say, \u2018Well, didn\u2019t Peter share the gospel with Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10)?\u00a0 Yes, he did but by the time the book of Galatians is written in AD 49, all of that is past.\u00a0 It is pretty well settled that Peter's job is to preach the gospel to the Jews and that Paul's job is to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.\u00a0 I think this helps to interpret 1 Peter 5:13 where there is a lot of confusion.\u00a0 Even the Ryrie Study Bible note is confused on this.\u00a0 It says that Peter signs off, \u201cShe who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.\u201d\u00a0 People pontificate about what he means by Babylon.\u00a0 I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Babylon, and I have a tremendous ability to babble on about Babylon.\u00a0 The bottom line is that when you see the word Babylon in the Bible, it means Babylon.\u00a0 Studying with us on the book of Revelation, and the rapture may occur before this happens, but eventually we will get to Rev\u00a0 17 & 18, where we learn about a great city named Babylon, and everybody and their mother, right up to Calvin and Luther, right up to the present, Dave Hunt, who I like, will tell you that Babylon really means Rome. It doesn\u2019t say Rome, it says Babylon.\u00a0 They\u2019ll go over to 1 Peter 5:13 and say that Babylon means Rome there, therefore, Babylon means Rome in Rev\u00a0 17 & 18.\u00a0 See what I have just done?\u00a0 I have just cut out the whole argument from under them because Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 means Babylon because Peter is the apostle to the Jews who were in Babylon because they went there for the 70-year captivity and when they came back into the land following this captivity as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, most of them didn\u2019t come back; most were in disobedience and stayed in Babylon.\u00a0 In fact, the whole book of Esther is about those Jews living in Babylon when Haman developed a plot to exterminate them, and in fact, when you look at Acts 2:9, you'll see there were Babylonians listening to Peter preach on the day of Pentecost. \u00a0If all the Jews are still in Babylon, and if Peter is the apostle to the Jews, it makes sense that he would go to Babylon.\u00a0 Why would he go to Rome?\u00a0 Wasn\u2019t someone else already in Rome?\u00a0 Isn't the book in the Bible called the book of Romans written to the Romans?\u00a0 Paul had already covered Rome, so why would Peter go where Paul had already gone?\u00a0 That makes no sense.\u00a0 If you just take the Bible for what it says where it states that he went to Babylon, that is where he went, because he was an apostle to the Jews, and that is where they were.\u00a0 So, who is the \u2018she\u2019?\u00a0 \u201cShe who was from Babylon greets you.\u201d\u00a0 That could be his wife; he was married; he had a mother-in-law.\u00a0 It is hard to have a mother-in-law if you aren\u2019t married.\u00a0 Did he take his wife 300 miles to Babylon, which is modern-day Iraq?\u00a0 Maybe so, maybe not, or the \u2018she\u2019 could be the Church in Babylon because the Greek noun for church is \u2018ekklesia\u2019 and the gender of \u2018ekklesia\u2019 in Greek is feminine, so that could also be the \u2018she.\u2019\u00a0 So how do we get a church in Babylon?\u00a0 There were people listening to Peter preach on the day of Pentecost who got saved:\u00a0 Jews in Acts 2:9, from Babylon, and they went back to Babylon and spread the gospel.\u00a0 Peter is going to Babylon to minister to that group and probably to try to win others to Christ because that is where most of the Jews were. Put all of this together, and there are about five arguments for Peter addressing a Jewish audience.\u00a0 People will not take this lightly or lying down, so let me very quickly give you the arguments that others will use to dispute that this is actually a Gentile audience rather than a Jewish audience in 1 Peter.\n
              \n \t
            1. The first thing said is that it talks about how these people had come out of former ignorance, and they say that the Jews are the chosen people of God, so how could a conversion out of Judaism be a conversion out of former ignorance? They will quote 1 Peter 1:14, \u201cAs obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your <\/u>\u201d\u00a0 So former ignorance couldn\u2019t be the Jewish race or nation because that is God's chosen people, and I would counter that by quoting 1 Tim 1:13, where Paul was converted.\u00a0 Was Paul Jewish?\u00a0 Yes, he describes his conversion out of former ignorance in 1 Tim 1:13.<\/li>\n \t
            2. The second argument that some give for this cannot be a Jewish audience but a Gentile audience instead, is that it mentions that originally before they got saved they had been handed down empty tradition from their fathers. 1 Peter 1:18, \u201c\u2026knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.<\/u><\/strong>\u201d\u00a0 People ask how that could be Judaism that they were converted from here?\u00a0 It makes more sense for them to be converted out of Gentile paganism because the Jews are the chosen people, and how could their backgrounds be looked at as empty tradition handed down from their fathers?\u00a0 The counter to this argument is that the empty tradition is Phariseeism, not Hebrew Bible, but Phariseeism. Phariseeism came about after the Babylonian captivity.\u00a0 What sin was the nation of Israel committing that put them into the 70-year captivity?\u00a0 It was the sin of idolatry.\u00a0 So, when they came out of the captivity after the 70 years, they figured out which sin put then into captivity, and they purged the land of idols.\u00a0 They over-reacted the opposite way and came up with extra-biblical rules, Phariseeism; man-made rules.\u00a0 They built a fence around the Law.\u00a0 Doing this is because you are so afraid of committing a particular you pass a lot of extra-biblical rules so you will never get close to that sin again.\u00a0 Thus, they placed all these rules about Sabbath breaking because they knew that sin put them into captivity; therefore, they're always in conflict with Jesus, Yeshua\u2014because He healed on the Sabbath, and the religious leaders got bent out of shape because Jesus was breaking their<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 That is why Jesus talked about how He is the Lord of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was meant for man. If the Sabbath was meant for man, why is there a problem with healing someone on the Sabbath?\u00a0 So, Jesus was operating according to the original intent of the Sabbath, but the conflict was with the man-made rules that they had imposed over the Sabbath; that is what legalism does; it builds a fence around the law.\u00a0 It starts out well intentioned, but eventually there are so many rules, that the tail starts to wag the dog.\u00a0 Someone very early on in the Bible who built a fence around the law is Eve, who was told by her husband \u2018not to eat from the tree of knowledge, or ye shall surely die.\u2019\u00a0 When she is tempted by the serpent, she replied, \u2018We can't eat of it or touch it<\/em><\/strong>.\u2019\u00a0 Go back to the original command, and you will see that God never said anything about touching it.\u00a0 So, Eve added a man-made regulation because she was trying to keep herself away from the forbidden fruit.\u00a0 That is essentially the beginning of building a fence around the law; the beginning of legalism, which occurs when someone is so afraid of committing a sin, that with good intentions, they start to pass rules to keep them away from that sin.\u00a0 What happens over time is that the rules become more important than the original commands of God.\u00a0 That is why every church has to bow to legalism all the time.\u00a0 Leaders of a church, including ours, must ask themselves if what they are doing is in the Bible or not?\u00a0 What happens is that man-made regulations come in and start off well-intentioned, but if not monitored, then the tail can wag the dog.\u00a0 That is what Judaism was in the time of Christ; why Jesus says in Mark 7:13, \u201c\u2026thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; \u2026\u201d\u00a0 It was a complete mess; there was something called the Talmud they had passed.\u00a0 I had to read this in Seminary, and it is exhausting because it is rule after rule after rule not found anywhere in the Old Testament.\u00a0 They had one in the land of Israel and an entirely different one in Babylon that many called the Babylonian Talmud.\u00a0 So, there is the IRS tax code times 2, and when you understand this, you can see why Jesus was always in conflict with the Pharisees who were always imposing the rules.\u00a0 Jesus wanted to get back to the original intent of Scripture.\u00a0 That is also why 1 Peter 1:18 says, \u201c\u2026knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.<\/u><\/strong>\u201d\u00a0 It is a statement against Phariseeism and Mishnah, etc.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                \n \t
              1. The statement that you have been removed from the empty tradition handed down to you could very easily apply to a Jewish audience if you understand the legalism that the nation was under at this particular time in history. Others say, \u2018Well, it says here in 1 Peter 2:9 that they\u2019ve been taken out of darkness into the light.\u2019\u00a0 Peter's audience had been taken out of the darkness into the light.\u00a0 How could that be a description of one getting saved from Judaism when the Jews are the chosen people?\u00a0 Again, I will counter with statements that are made elsewhere in the Bible.\u00a0 Not sure we have time to look at all of them, but Isa 6:9,10; Matt 13:14; 2 Cor 3:13-16 will confirm that all those statements refer to Jews without Christ as in darkness.\u00a0 The statement, \u2018you\u2019ve been taken out of darkness\u2019 could easily apply to a Jewish audience.<\/li>\n \t
              2. The one that really gets people is they say they\u2019d been redeemed out of idolatry. Peter says in 1 Peter 4:3, \u201cFor the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries<\/u><\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 They had been saved out of idolatry, and there was one thing that first century Israel was not:\u00a0 \u00a0 They may have had a lot of problems, but they no longer worshiped idols, statues.\u00a0 Babylonian captivity ridded them of idolatry because they figured out that idolatry had gotten them shipped 300 miles to the east to modern-day Iraq for 70 years, and when they came back out, they vowed never to do that again.\u00a0 Then they rid the land of idols.\u00a0 Post-exilic Israel was non-idolatrous, worshiping statues.\u00a0 Pre-exilic Israel was very idolatrous, and the Pharisees started to come into the existence then and purged the land of idols.\u00a0 See Maps of Babylon<\/strong> that illustrates where they went into captivity.\u00a0 If that is true, then how could Peter say to a Jewish audience that they had been redeemed from idolatry?\u00a0 The answer is that idolatry is much more than a metal statue.\u00a0 You can be idolatrous without bowing down to a statue of any kind.\u00a0 Idolatry is anything in life put for significance, worth, or petition for need other than God.\u00a0 Paul calls idolatry a work of the flesh, the sin nature.\u00a0 I can go through my whole life without bowing down to a single statue and still be idolatrous.\u00a0 I could attach worth to money over God, or any number of things.\u00a0 So, Paul says in Gal 5:19-20, \u201cNow the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are:\u00a0 immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry<\/u><\/strong> [the same word that Peter used in 1 Peter 4:3 to describe what the audience had been redeemed out of] \u2026\u201d\u00a0 Just because it says idolatry, that doesn\u2019t disqualify 1 Peter from being written to a Jewish audience because idolatry can take place in the human heart since it is a work of the flesh.<\/li>\n \t
              3. One other quick argument that some use to argue that Peter's audience had to have been non-Jews is that \u2018Peter uses the Greek version of his name.\u2019 In 1 Peter 1:1, he calls himself Peter or Petros, the Greek name for Peter.\u00a0 Peter has one name in three languages.\u00a0 When he is using the name, \u2018Simon\u2019 [Luke 22:31], he is using the Hebrew understanding of his name; when he uses the name, \u2018Cephas\u2019 [1 Cor 1:12; 1 Cor 9:5], it is the Aramaic name for Peter; Petros is the Greek name for Peter.\u00a0 Some say that it couldn\u2019t have been written to a Jewish audience because he would have used his Hebrew or Aramaic name.\u00a0 The answer to this is seen in to whom Peter is writing.\u00a0 See 1 Peter 1:1, \u201cPeter [petros<\/u>]<\/strong>, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen.\u201d\u00a0 To whom is he writing there?\u00a0 From where is he writing?\u00a0 Babylon in the east.\u00a0 Why take Babylon literally?\u00a0 Do we take the other locations in the above Scripture literally?\u00a0 At the beginning of the book, the geography is literal, but it isn't at the end of the book?\u00a0 Don't get me started.\u00a0 Why not just take the whole Bible for what it says?\u00a0 If you do that, it will ameliorate a lot of crazy, end times theories about the Vatican being the Antichrist in the last days.\u00a0 I am no fan of Roman Catholicism, and I think that Roman Catholicism will somehow be involved in the new world order, no doubt, but the center of authority in the book of Revelation is not Rome; it is Babylon because Babylon means Babylon.\u00a0 We get that with Israel.\u00a0 Doesn\u2019t Israel mean Israel?\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t mean the church, so why do we think Babylon means something else?\u00a0 Luther figured out quickly that if you call the Pope the Antichrist, that will be preach.\u00a0 People liked hearing that, so he kept doing that and became more popular.\u00a0 That Babylon equals Rome stuck, and it was Luther who pushed those ideas.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nWhy doesn\u2019t Peter use his Hebrew or Aramaic name?\u00a0 Because it has to do with to whom he is writing in north central Galatia and what language they all spoke there.\u00a0 They spoke Greek even though they were Jews in the Diaspora; they were Greek-speaking.\u00a0 That is why he is using his Greek name; not necessarily because he is writing to a Gentile audience.\u00a0 So then 1 Peter is not addressed to the Church as a whole; it is addressed to Hebrew Christians within the Church; we can see that from 1 Peter itself and answering arguments against that position\n\nWhat did the Church fathers believe?\u00a0 Per Gerald Bray, \u201cWith very few exceptions, the fathers believed that this letter was written by the apostle Peter and sent to Jewish Christians in the Diaspora.\u00a0 (Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus, Andreas, Oecumenius).\u00a0 They recognized that the letter has close resemblances to James, and they accounted for this by saying that both men were apostles to the Jews, though Peter seems to have concentrated more on those who lived outside Palestine (Andreas).\u201d\u00a0 So, the early church fathers believed that 1 Peter was written to a Jewish audience.\u00a0 Other more modern scholars who also believed this include John Calvin, Bengal, Wiest, Alford, English, and Weiss.\u00a0 This is not some weird view here.\n\nIf there is evidence from 1 Peter that the book was written to a Jewish audience, and if the arguments that it was written to a Gentile audience can be answered, and if the earliest church fathers believed it was written to a Jewish audience, that means that 1 Peter 2:9 has a very limited application.\u00a0 1 Peter is part of a unique set of books in the New Testament; there are six of them that are written specifically to answer questions that a Jewish Christian would be struggling with in the age of the early church.\u00a0 What are those books?\u00a0 Matthew, it is very clear that John is written to a Gentile audience.\u00a0 The epistle James written to the twelve tribes; Hebrews.\u00a0 Peter is the apostle to the Jews who wrote two books:\u00a0 1 Peter and 2 Peter, and which book sounds a lot like 2 Peter?\u00a0 Jude, it is taken to be written to a Hebrew Christian audience.\u00a0 It is important when reading these to understand who the recipients are.\u00a0 I'm not saying as a Gentile Christian that I can't apply truths from these books to my life, but I'm not going to build a theology of Replacement Theology from 1 Peter 2:9 when 1 Peter was not even written to the whole church.\n\nArnold Fruchtenbaum says, \u201cOf the twenty-one epistles in the New Testament, five were written to Jewish believers dealing with the needs of Jewish believers and specific issues that Jewish believers faced.\u00a0 There are things in these epistles applicable to all believers, but some are true only of Jewish believers.\u00a0 These five epistles (he has left off the gospel of Matthew because he is only dealing with the epistles in his work here) are Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and Jude.\u201d\n\nTherefore, 1 Peter 2:9 has a highly limited application.\u00a0 What is 1 Peter 2:9 really saying then when it calls the audience a kingdom of priests?\u00a0 It is saying that Israel as a whole failed to live up to God's calling at Mt Sinai.\u00a0 She failed to live up to her calling as a kingdom of priests but the believing Jewish remnant within the Church has fulfilled that calling.\u00a0 So, Israel failed to live up as a nation to her calling as a kingdom of priests thus far in redemptive history, but the believing Jewish remnant within the Church is fulfilling that calling \u2014 this is Peter's point.\n\nArnold Fruchtenbaum puts it this way, \u201cIt should be kept in mind that Peter is writing to Jewish believers.\u00a0 Throughout Scripture, there are always two Israel's:\u00a0 Israel the whole that comprises all Jews; and, Israel the Remnant that comprises only believing Jews.\u00a0\u00a0 Here, Peter distinguishes between the Remnant and the non-Remnant.\u00a0 Replacement Theology, however, relies on this passage as proof that the true Israel is the church\u2026\u201d\u00a0 They all do this.\u00a0 \u201cThis is a favorite passage for those who teach Replacement Theology.\u00a0 They teach that what the Old Testament stated to be true of Israel, Peter now applies and states to be true of the Church [meaning that the Church has replaced Israel and the Kingdom has begun].\u00a0 Thus, they conclude that the Church has replaced Israel.\u00a0 However, there is no hint in the epistle that Peter is addressing the Church as a whole.\u00a0 On the contrary, in the epistle\u2019s introduction (1:1-2), he stated that he was addressing Jewish believers who specifically comprised what was the then Remnant of Israel \u2014[what would we call that believing Jewish remnant within the Church?\u00a0 Paul has a word for them:\u00a0 the Israel of God<\/em>.\u00a0 Gal 6:16 doesn\u2019t cover the whole church.\u00a0 it covers the believing Jews within the Church.\u00a0 That is who Peter is addressing.\u00a0 \u201cIt is important to recognize that the contrast Peter makes here is not between the church and Israel, or between believers and non-believers, or between unbelieving Jews and believing Gentiles.\u00a0\u00a0 Rather, the contrast here is between the Remnant and the Non-Remnant of Israel.\u00a0\u00a0 Peter's point is that while Israel the whole failed to fulfill its calling, the Remnant of Israel has not failed to fulfill its calling.\u201d\u00a0 So, if what we have said here is true, you cannot use this verse to promote Replacement Theology because the letter was never written to the whole church.\u00a0 \u2018Let's pretend it is written to the whole church.\u2019\u00a0 Then use Argument A:\u00a0 similarity is not equality<\/strong>.\u00a0 The truth of the matter is that the book was never written to the whole church; that is basically how you handle 1 Peter 2:9.\n\nWhen we regather after summer hiatus, we will look at a few verses in the book of Revelation; you are already experts in this book that allegedly support Kingdom Now theology.\u00a0\u00a0 Then we will be looking at some miscellaneous arguments that are used outside the Bible to support Kingdom Now theology.\u00a0 Then we will be getting to the so-what question:\u00a0 why it matters, which I probably should have written first.\u00a0 I have dragged you along for 70 lessons and you are wondering why this is significant.\u00a0 Part III of the book is the so what; it changes the mission and calling of the Church which is what we will get into.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t