Born Again to a Living Hope: A Messianic Commentary on 1 Peter

So I’m a little behind on things, but a busy schedule tends to make that happen. Here it is, finally: my review of David Wilber’s Born Again to a Living Hope: A Messianic Commentary on 1 Peter. This book is the first in a new series called the Messianic Jewish Application Commentary series, edited by Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Igal German. I greatly look forward to also reviewing future volumes, so stay tuned as more come out. 

---

First, to the series as a whole. It takes a Pronomian stance on the Torah, meaning it stands in just about the strongest continuity possible, and asserts that the Torah’s commandments remain obligatory on all of God’s people even to this day (albeit, as Wilber argues elsewhere, the observance of these commandments must be shaped by one’s faith in Messiah Yeshua). Secondarily to the point of strong continuity and the position of the ongoing relevance of the Torah for believers today, the MJAC series also maintains a post-supersessionist viewpoint of the people of Israel. In short, this means the series is staunchly opposed to all forms of replacement theology, wherein it is taught that God disowned Israel in favor of a new covenant people called “the Church.” Lastly, the book is focused not only on textual exegesis, but also on textual application (hence the A in MJAC). Each chapter concludes with a section called Lessons for Today section not unlike the Contemporary Significance section of the NIV Application Commentary series (if you're familiar with the NIVAC). This is extremely helpful, and one of the most important contributions to the conversation of biblical exegesis among Torah observant believers today, answering the questions that arise in the vein of: this is great to know, but what do I do with it?

Now, with that all in mind, let’s get into the book. 

​In the introductory material, Wilber lays out the case for original Petrine authorship. While nothing short of a no-brainer for most evangelicals and more conservative believers, this is nonetheless challenging the status quo among critical scholars, many of whom deny that Peter actually wrote the letter.
 
Wilber tackles the criticism head-on, addressing the Patristic evidence (that is, what the early church fathers had to say about the letter in the few years after it was written), the grammatical evidence (such as, how 1 Peter bears a more refined tone of Greek than one would expect of a poorly-educated fisherman), the letter’s preference for quoting the Septuagint (LXX) over the Hebrew text of the time, and more. In short, with his work addressing the complex issue of the authorship of 1 Peter, Wilber concisely answers the critics and affirms the traditional view that has dominated most of history since the letter was first penned: it bears the name of Peter because he was the author.
 
Additional front-matter of the book deals with the date and setting of the letter, which is critical in gaining an understanding of the context and point in time being addressed. Perhaps the most important piece of the introductory material, however, is his handling of the recipients of the letter. Scholars are split on this issue, between the view that most of his audience were Jews versus those who believe the audience to be predominantly non-Jewish. Wilber takes the latter position, which is worth pointing out given the priesthood and Israel-centric language that 1 Peter uses for the audience of the letter. (Don't worry, he offers a solid explanation as to why).
 
The book flows, logically, through the entire letter. While there is obviously not enough space in a single, concise volume to address every verse on its own (let alone every word), Wilber takes the chapters piece by piece and addresses nearly every theme along the way. His practical advice is sapiential for believers of all backgrounds, but in particular for those in the modern American social context. He carefully balances his scholarly insights with pastoral care. Demonstrating his mastery of apologetics (interestingly, in the very book from which we derive the concept of biblical apologetics, cf. 1 Pet. 3:15), Wilber surveys various perspectives, giving a solid lay of the land for each major textual and theological issue he addresses, before settling on one and giving the reasons for his selection.
 
Of particular note to myself (and the other DCW fans out there), Wilber handles 1 Pet. 3:18-20 in a very Heiserian way, taking the reference of the “spirits in prison” to be the fallen sons of God from Genesis 6 (and here I would note: the Sethite theories are particularly impotent to explain Peter’s meaning). On this point, he considers multiple alternatives, notes their strengths and weaknesses, and then the superior evidence of this view. (I won't go into further detail, but suffice it to say, you will want to read it for yourself). 
 
Throughout the book, the themes of perseverance and suffering and staying faithful and maintaining hope are repeated and reinforced (naturally, as these are some of the most poignant themes in the letter). Here again, the Lessons for Today offer much encouragement and sage advice. Additionally, Wilber’s frequent references back to the Torah are a treat to see in a NT commentary. Here, two particular Lessons for Today stand out to me: one on holiness, which drives the reader back to Leviticus, and the other on honoring our elders, which also takes us back to Leviticus (and to the Prophets as well). I don’t want to offer major spoilers here, because I still want to see people go out and purchase the book (Seriously: support the scholars who do this work, I promise it's worth it and none of us are getting rich off of this). However, these two quotes here I think are too good not to share.

In the Lesson for Today from chapter 9, Wilber asserts, “We need to return to the biblical principle of honoring our elders. But how can we live this out today? What does honoring our elders look like in our modern culture? The Hebrew verb הדר (“honor”) means “to show respect” or “to prefer.” In essence, honoring our elders means treating them with respect and esteeming them as valuable sources of wisdom. We should generally “prefer” their insight to that of our peers or those younger than us. This is a proper expression of humility (1 Pet. 5:5)...” (pp. 114-115) This, I believe, is a great counter to the derisive “okay, Boomer” attitude that so many Millennials of my own generation have adopted. (Granted, when elders also exhibit humility, it makes their advice easier to take).

In chapter 3’s Lesson, Wilber exhorts readers to understand not only that being watchful of their weaknesses (such as avoiding sexual temptation) is a means of maintaining holiness, but even things such as Sabbath observance and adhering to the dietary guidelines of Leviticus 11 are expressions of holiness as well. “What does this mean for followers of Yeshua today? It means that if we truly want to follow Peter’s instruction to be holy in all our conduct, we should look to the commandments in Leviticus that define what holiness looks like.” (p. 43). On this, I have much to say, but that’s (a rant) for another time. For now, I think this showcases the tune of the wise and timely advice offered by Wilber’s commentary.
 
One criticism I would offer, however, is in his address of the household code found in 1 Pet. 2, which Wilber covers in chapter 5 (pp. 67-70). There he notes the instruction of the household code for wives to “submit to your own husbands.” The whole section of this chapter addresses submission in each facet noted in the letter (starting in 2:13), such as all people to governing authorities, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands. Wilber states this instruction to wives is essentially a missional tactic: that is, that by pure conduct, unbelieving husbands would be won over by a wife who does not bring dishonor to her husband. To a great degree, I agree with this premise. (He also offers some explanation of why it is mostly unbelieving husbands in view, which is a good topic in its own, and is crucial to understanding the whole context). However, I would like to see a bit more nuance with respect to how that submission should be understood, and to what extent it is mutual. Paul’s letters of Ephesians and 1 Corinthians anticipate reciprocated, mutual submission between husbands and wives. Does this mean 1 Peter is at odds with those letters? I do not believe that to be the case.

I believe the key here is how Peter chains his expectations for conduct together. First, the call to submit is not exclusive to wives submitting to their husbands; it first appears in 2:13, calling on all believers to submit to human authorities. Then, in 2:18 he instructs slaves to submit to their masters. Peter then picks up in 3:1 with the Greek word ὁμοίως, an adverb meaning “in the same way.” He says “In the same way, wives submit…” Then in 3:7 he uses the same adverb to start the clause: “You husbands, in the same way…” Many here claim that the “In the same way” refers to the verb that follows, meaning “In the same way, live with your wives in understanding…” but if the adverb modifies “live with your wives” then it does not follow that this adverb would be used. After all, Peter hasn’t yet issued an instruction to “live with…in understanding.” That is, the only preceding verb that ὁμοίως is already connected to – syntactically – is ὑποτάσσω (hupotasso), “submit.” Peter will then go on to use both words together again in 5:5 when instructing young men to “submit” to their elders. Each time, in fact, that the adverb “in the same way” is found in 1 Peter, it relates to this same primary verbal idea of submission.

Lastly, the very fact that Peter’s instructions to husbands includes showing honor to their wives as a συγκληρονόμος (synkleronomos), “co-heirs” can only mean that they are to see their wives in a manner befitting an equal heir of the kingdom.  

So, all that to say, while I wouldn’t expect this commentary to go into such depth in all places, I would have liked to see a little more fleshed out on this passage since “submission” is still such a hot button issue today.

That’s not to say this book expresses anything contrary to mutual submission, however; only that I feel it does not fully address the issue of how submission is, biblically, mutual between persons, including husbands and wives. I do agree that Peter does not write instructions to unbelievers (that wouldn’t fit the purpose of the letter being for believers in the community, after all), and I also agree that Peter’s call for wives to submit, even to unbelieving husbands, is itself missional in nature. I would also add, that this very could fit with the theme of patience and perseverance even in suffering. I would assert, however, that there should remain room in the Lessons for Today that could be added to address this very issue, and the treatment of women by the poor exegesis and misapplication of this passage, and what the limitations of submission are (such as, for instance, how a woman does not have an obligation to stay with an abusive husband just because her faith could influence him to come to Messiah). Once again, I want to be very clear: I am not saying Wilber’s book is contrary to this position, and I am not saying his contemporary application section on these passages isn’t correct, biblical, and pastorally crafted advice. I believe it is. I simply mean to say, I would have liked to see this particular issue addressed directly. But that’s often the case, is it not? We always want someone else to say exactly what we would have wanted them to say.
 
In conclusion, I want to strongly encourage everyone who hasn’t yet acquired a copy of Born Again to a Living Hope to go and get one. (And the hardcover is very nice). It is an awesome study through 1 Peter, and would be great not only for personal edification, but also for group Bible study, as well as even a devotional book. I strongly and fully endorse it.