How 1 Peter Reads Scripture: Why the Septuagint Matters | Ed Glenny

Why does it matter that 1 Peter consistently uses the Greek Old Testament — the Septuagint — and how does that shape the message of the letter?

In this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, Daniel Mikkelsen speaks with New Testament scholar Ed Glenny about how the author of 1 Peter reads and uses Scripture. Ed Glenny shows why Peter’s use of the Greek Scriptures is not incidental, but central to understanding the theology and argument of the letter.

Much of 1 Peter is shaped by careful engagement with the Old Testament in Greek. We explore why most of Peter’s quotations come from the Septuagint, how Scripture is woven around key theological themes, and why the centre of the letter is found in 1 Peter 2:4–10. Along the way, we look at examples where Greek details matter — including wordplay that cannot be heard in translation and Peter’s usage of Isaiah 40 — showing how Scripture shapes identity, ethics, and hope.

This conversation highlights why paying attention to how Peter reads Scripture helps us read 1 Peter more clearly and faithfully, and why the Septuagint still matters for understanding the New Testament today.

Don't Miss the Next episode:

In the next episode, Daniel Mikkelsen explores the material of resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15.35–58 and how Paul’s argument unfold in one of the most important chapters in the New Testament.

📘 Free Guide — Why Struggle with Greek?
Avoid the most common mistakes beginners make and start making real progress in reading the New Testament in Greek:
👉 https://ntgreektutoring.com/why-struggle-with-greek?utm_source=youtube

00:00 — Coming Up…
 01:02 — Welcoming Ed Glenny Back: Scholar of 1 Peter and the Septuagint
 05:04 — Does Reading Greek Actually Change How You Read Scripture?
 08:21 — Can You Fully Trust the Bible Without Knowing Greek or Hebrew?
 10:49 — What English Translations Can’t Show You in 1 Peter
 16:13 — A Greek Wordplay You Can’t Hear in Translation
 20:50 — ‘Raised from Among the Dead’: Why the Greek Is Plural
 25:03 — Did Christ Proclaim Victory to the Spirits in Prison?
 32:04 — Flesh and Spirit in 1 Peter: Two Realms or One Body?
 35:14 — Why the New Testament Often Quotes the Septuagint
 43:00 — Quotation or Allusion? How Scripture Is Used in the New Testament
 50:30 — The Scriptural Pattern That Shapes 1 Peter’s Theology
 58:49 — The New Covenant: Fulfilment and Participation
 01:03:28 — Why Peter Reworks Isaiah 40
 01:16:28 — What Peter Ultimately Wants Believers to Do

Music Credits:
Music from #Uppbeat
🔗 https://uppbeat.io/t/all-good-folks/aspire

If you enjoyed this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, please consider becoming an Explorer! Your support helps keep the podcast ad-free, allows us to bring in more guests, and enhances the content we create. By joining our Explorer community, you’ll receive exclusive benefits, including Q&As, priority for Greek tutoring applications, and discounts on tutoring. Explore more and join the Explorer programme here: Become an Explorer. 

Podcast Keywords:
biblical languages, New Testament, Old Testament, Christ, bible study,  Relationship with God, learn biblical languages, Biblical Theology, Christianity, Covenants, New covenant, old covenant, language acquisition, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew.

Transcript

0:00

How did Peter apply the old Testament? How did he use it in his application to his recipients? Of course, doing that, I got into the Septuagint because most of the quotations in first Peter are from the Septuagint. Peter chooses his quotations often around themes. mean, when you, when you talk about the main theology of first Peter, the main indicative statement of the book is in chapter two versus. 4 through 10. 1 Peter 2, 2 put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. He says hypocrisy, but it's a plural in the Greek. Why does he use a plural? I wanted to tie in the Isaiah quotation from chapter one, verse 24 and 25, because it's not a direct quotation. He adds a little bit, retracts a little bit in order to make a point. what is going on here? Well, he definitely. Welcome back to another episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek learning in your spare time. I'm your host, Daniel Mikkelsen, the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate in New Testament at the University of Edinburgh. And this podcast exists to make gems from biblical studies accessible to everyday Christians and show you how the biblical languages opens up scripture. Our aim is to increase your love for God and his word, so that you become more joyful witnesses for his mission. And today I'm delighted and honored to... Welcome Ed Glenny back who is professor of New Testament and Greek at University of Northwestern St. Paul in Minnesota. Ed's expertise through his research on the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Septuagint, and his forthcoming commentary on 1 Peter with Lexham Press makes him the perfect guest for today's episode. As we will be exploring how Peter draws on the Septuagint and how Peter uses these quotations in his argument and what this tells us about the message of the letter and the early Christian usage of scripture. If that sounds intriguing to you, then stick around for that. Without further ado, it's a great pleasure to have you back on the podcast Ed. Welcome back. Thank you very much, Daniel. Great to be here and looking forward to talking with you this morning. It's morning my time, but I'm not sure it is yours, but anyhow today. Yeah. time when you listen, for you listener, whatever time you listen to it, have a wonderful time, it's morning, evening or afternoon. Yes. Yeah. Anything else you want to add before we start with some questions? Well, I should have mentioned it to you. I think I told you I retired last June from full time teaching at the University of Northwestern in St. Paul. I'm doing some adjunct work this fall at another seminary in the area called Bethlehem uh College and Seminary in Minneapolis, teaching First Peter actually. And I'm enjoying that. I was awarded emeritus status this fall and I should probably introduce myself as emeritus professor now rather than professor. So I am, I am emeritus professor and yeah, I'm the commentary on first Peter is still in, in, in process. It is, uh, hopefully going to be out one of these years. I don't think this year probably, but hopefully next year for sure. And I'm spending my time. trying to get more into the commentary I'm writing on Ruth for the Septuagint commentary series with Brill. And actually I'm looking forward to going back to where we first met, Tyndale. We're hoping to go there, my wife and I, for uh the spring for a while to do some studying there for a few months. So looking forward to that and praying that it's productive and can get a lot accomplished. Yeah. So good to be with you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Yeah. Hopefully the Tyndale House library might be close to finishing when you go there then. Well, no, I think it'll be a while yet. It looks like they're just getting going and uh laying the foundation for the new building. I hope that I will be able to access the books I need. it sounds like we'll be able to. You can always use the Cambridge University Library if Tyndale doesn't have it available. Yes, yeah, that's true. It's yeah, I know some people who still spend their time there every day or reason or often and it doesn't seem to be a problem. So em it sounds like it's people are able to do their work. Yeah, yes indeed. But should we jump into some questions? Sounds good. Yeah, as we've been through your personal journey into the biblical languages last time, I will not ask that question again, but a major focus of this podcast is biblical languages. So could you perhaps highlight some different things than you did last time about how knowing the biblical languages has helped you open up scripture for you? Yeah, I don't have a lot more to do that I can add from what we talked about last time. I thought about it again. I would like to emphasize the importance of memorizing the scriptures in the original languages. If people are able to do that, I think it's very helpful. And for me, it really helps me think scripture more and think original languages more. So I've enjoyed having my devotions in the original languages and I would just encourage people concerning that. and also if you want to write about scripture, if you want to publish or use scripture in your writing, which most Christians, especially pastors or teachers are going to do. It seems like it would be very hard to speak authoritatively about those things unless you know the original languages and can interact with. So that leads to another area, and that is interacting with commentaries and reading commentaries and reading books about theology to be able to assess the things that are being said and to be able to understand them and interact with them. And I think it It gives us much more of a foundation. uh I think of Luther's great hymn today, how firm a foundation, you saints of the Lord, you know, laid for your faith in his word. And really the ultimate authority for that, the ultimate foundation is in those original language manuscripts. Going back to the very original copies of them, which we have great evidence of. 99.9 % maybe of what was original, we can say we have in the language text we have today in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. where there still might be a little bit of a question doesn't affect any major doctrine. it's just, you know, we have great authority and great confidence and assurance in the scriptures, especially when we, I think, work from the original languages, which we'll talk about today. Yeah, thank you for adding that point. and one thing that, so Luther was very famous for translating the Bible into German and then made it like it should be available in the common tongue of whatever nation it would be, that he's very famous for that. But he's also actually said something he's less famous for is that actually it's very important that the biblical languages live in the community for the gospel to be vibrant in the community. is not quite the exact quote, but he did actually believe that too. That's good. Yeah, I really appreciate the focus of your ministry and of these podcasts, but I do think that teaching, something that I've always emphasized in teaching, especially at the undergrad level where the majority of students are not studying original languages at that time. Maybe they will in the future, hopefully, but We can have great confidence in the translations of scripture we have today. People who don't have original languages are people who don't read them in the original languages. And I think we need to balance that in that regard that those who pour over the Bible translations in their native language, let's say whether it be English or Danish or whatever it is. I mean, they can, I believe in those translations, they can learn everything they need to know to know God and to be right with God. But there's a little bit more. We talked last time about the difference between reading the, watching a film, let's say in black and white or in color. And, you know, it, It opens things up, it gives insights that are doubtless there, but still, we shouldn't, I think we need to be careful we don't talk about this to the degree that we get to the place where people who are reading the Bible in a translation think that they can't have confidence in that. I think they can and should. It's much better to be reading it in a translation than not reading it at all. I think we would both agree. Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, I appreciate that point. As much as I think that more people should learn the biblical languages, it's even more important that people just read the Bible. Yeah, we used to talk about in hermeneutics class, I used to tell students, let me give you the three principles, foundational principles of Bible study. And I would say the first one is read it. And I don't know where I heard this from then. The second one, anybody, the second one is read it. Anyone want to guess what the third principle is? It's read it. I mean, you know, get in the Bible and immerse yourself with it. Hmm. That's where we have to start, anyhow. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, but as the focus here is biblical languages, I would like you to highlight a couple of things that you've seen in the original that you did not see in the translation. Okay, and I tried to think of a few of these and they're not maybe the kind of things that will be world-changing or something like that, although some of them are fairly very important and I have a list of maybe eight or so things here. Maybe we don't want to do all of them now. Some of them are more theological, maybe more interesting. Some of them are just basically things that you can see and realize. Maybe we should start, let's start with 1 Peter 2.2. And uh just to emphasize, there's a list here of sins in 1 Peter 2.2. So I'm going to go in all different verses, just trying to show, emphasize a few things from something here and something there. But in 1 Peter 2.2; Peter says, put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. And let me grab my Greek New Testament here. So it's hard to get my computer up when we're here like this. So I describe it correctly. Mm. All right. 1 Peter 2.2 in Greek. Notice when he describes the sins that he wants them to put away or take off, he describes them as all in all. And then he says hypocrisy. That's how the ESV translates it. And I suppose most do. but it's a plural in the Greek. And I just wanted to emphasize that. It's a plural and then he says envy, but that's a plural also, φθόνους (phanous). And then again, he says all slander. Literarily, it's interesting because the first and the last have the word κακα- (kaka) in them or... parts of the word κακα- (kaka) that kind of frame the whole discussion of the sins that Christians are to put off. They're basically social, social or speaking type sins. But why does he use a plural? Why does he talk about hypocrisies and envies? And I think we have the very same thing in later in the book in chapter four, where he talks about the way they used to live. And I think the author does this, the plural form, because the plural form suggests various manifestations of these sins. In other words, any kind of hypocrisy or any kind of envy that you would put those off. And that's just a little insight that you can't pick up from. You don't realize that you think it's a singular there. He uses all with the first and the second and the last, but the other two, where he doesn't use all, are plurals. Again, emphasizing every manifestation of these sins. And A.T. Robertson brings that out in his Greek grammar, page 408, if some of you wanted to check on that. But it's a principle I think you can use when you're coming across lists of things, why does the author use a plural in one place and other times just describe the various characteristics, more of an abstract, rather than putting it into life. I've come across the same thing with grumbling. In 1 Peter 4.9, we're supposed to be hospitable without grumbling. And he just uses the word. It's a singular there. But in Philippians 2.14, it's interesting, Paul uses the plural there for grumblings. And it's not just grumblings, but it's a couple things that Paul mentions there. so a slightly different emphasis that Paul uses. Do all things without, I mean the ESV says grumbling or questioning, they're plurals. So it's literally there, do all things without any kind of grumbling. Just get it out of your life totally. And questionings or disputings that you might have when you, in your relationships with one another, in your life with one another. But to me that's it's just very small issue, but it it it's an emphasis that I think is worth picking up that's there. Why do they make these changes in the Greek language? Yeah. I go ahead. Well, should I keep going? I've got a few other things here, too. Do you want to? maybe just on this example, just in the next verse there's a wordplay as well. So it uses πάντα δόλον in the first verse, which you just mentioned. And then it talks about ἄδολον γάλα the undeceited milk. Yes, the milk that they are, the spiritual nourishment they are supposed to desire is without deceit, without deception. that's what, you know, so again, why you've got to put it off and get it out of your life. If you're going to really desire and want, if you're living that way, you're not going to want this word that is this. nourishment, this milk that is described in the next verse. Good point. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, we find it is very difficult in English to render that in one word, because when I say undeceited, it doesn't really make any sense. But in Greek, it's just orally so close. It's so close. can like... Yeah. Yeah. uh so so rhetorically it it just makes it like stronger that he's just said don't do this but then desire this Yes. Word connections are, think, one of the biggest things that really help in reading in the Greek because lots of times they're not clear. You don't really know exactly what the word is or what is going on with that. where you've got or you can know exactly what the word is, makes It makes a big difference. It often opens up the text, I think. Yeah, yeah, and if you also think about that, usually people would have been, this book would have been read, people would have listened to it. And that's usually how it would have, we usually read things in our culture, because we are quite focused on reading. But in a culture where maybe amongst Christians, we don't know, maybe they were a little bit more literate than other parts of society, I don't know exactly. But the point is that most of the time, this would have been read in the congregation. and scripture would have been read out loud and people would have listened to it and then you get these word plays they become in a sense stronger. They do, yeah. And I'll tell you, when you're trying to memorize scripture, those things really help sometimes. You can make the connections and the links. But it helps also in understanding, that's for sure. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, maybe you can give another example. Well, just in 1 Peter 1.3, blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's we know Greek students, that's a Granville Sharp construction, the God and father, where you've got two nouns in the same case that are connected by καί (kai) and you have one article that modifies or goes with both of them. And the rule is that when they're in the singular, that they refer to the same person. And again, not maybe a big thing, but to be able to be confident of that and realize that that is the way the Greek works. And what we've got here is when he's describing God, he's describing him as the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. showing that there is this begotten type relationship, that means Jesus wasn't just made, he partakes of the same nature as the Father. He is the Son partaking of the same nature as we've been talking about with the Nicene Creed so much this fall and this year. I think again, that's just something that needs to be needs to be, we need to be aware of when we read this that God is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who sent the Son and Jesus is the begotten Son, the best way we can describe it, of the very same nature of the Father who has sent uh the second member of the Trinity into this world. So that's helpful for me too. At the end of chapter one, verse three, I've been trying to think about this. I mean Jesus Christ, who's begotten us to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Now, when I read that, when I read the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, I think it means, I take it in my mind, and maybe this is just the way I think, as like, he came out of death. He, kind of an abstract thing, Jesus Christ was raised from death. But actually in the Greek it's ἐκ νεκρῶν (ek nekrōn) a plural. In other words, he was raised from among the dead. And that makes it much more real to me. That ah makes it uh something that is concrete. Jesus Christ came out of the dead, out from among the dead. God raised his son up. And that's, think, literally how that phrase should be read. But, you know, we kind of read it and just take it more of, okay, he wasn't dead anymore. He raised, well, it's actually, actually the plural there, νεκρῶν (nekrōn), is saying something a little bit different than that, I think, when we have that phrase in our New Testament. So, I mean, these are small things, but they are all over the place. And they're the kinds of things that by reading it in the original languages, we're talking about Greek here today, you can pick up some of these things and make these kind of connections much more easily and really bring great light and great insight many times, just little things that help the Bible to live and be be more I guess I want to say concrete, but also not always concrete, but at least more precise in our understanding of it, perhaps. Hmm. Yeah, I think that's a great point about the νεκρῶν (nekrōn), Because it's quite interesting because that's usually the phrase in resurrection is... if talk about resurrection in the New Testament, it's always the plural. So it's usually ἐκ νεκρῶν (ek nekrōn). I don't think there's any time where it's used as singular. So... no. No, I, I. Go ahead. νεκρῶν (nekrōn) also νεκρός (nekros). νεκρός (nekros) the singular, is that νεκρός (nekros) can mean a corpse. Hmm interesting in certain contexts. so Matt Novenson in his book actually translates some of Paul's phrases that he raised from amongst the corpses. But I don't know if that's the best translation, but but it's just an interesting sort of like emphasis of it's it's the dead in the sense of like the multifaceted plurality of of these. Yeah, of people being dead. that is from the state where there are more than one dead that Jesus was raised in a sense. Yeah, that's good. It definitely gives you the idea of coming out from among them when you use that kind of language. That's right. Yeah, and in a sense, I actually think that undermines his point, but that's another... Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I think, think, yeah, yeah, yeah. So because he argues in his book that we will become angels in the resurrection, which I disagree with. So I actually think that, that... No, no, so, but it's very interesting that... So it's out there now, that's what he argues, but, at least something very close to that. but I think that, that if he actually translated that way, then I think that the point is much sharper. It's that he, that it was the corpse that rose. But, but, but that's, that's another thing that's, that's maybe another time. But yeah. So you spend a lot of time reading through the Greek. of 1 Peter and much of this Septuagint without giving too much away from what we'll talk about in a moment, is there anything about the use of scripture in 1 Peter or elsewhere in the New Testament that you picked up on in the original that you did not see in translation? Learning New Testament Greek can be a real challenge. If that's been your experience, I've put together a free PDF guide called Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward. Inside you'll find the most common pitfalls and my simple three step framework to help you start reading Greek with more confidence. Get your free copy today by clicking the link in the description below or the pinned comment. Now back to the episode. Well. I've got a few things. Maybe we could talk about some theological issues in 1 Peter. I have a few other grammatical things, one that I think is very important is just the repetition of the same form of the verb in chapter 3. In chapter 3, we have the Chapter three, verses 18 through 22, we've got the victory of Christ, his death and burial and resurrection and ascension described here. And then there is that parenthetical part in the middle of the, in the middle, it would be. verses 19 and through 21, I guess, which has to do with his preaching to the spirits. In verse 19, it says that he was made alive in the spirit. I take it to be the spirit realm uh in which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison. And it's the verb. πορευθεὶς (poreuteis) 'he went'. Now, what's really important here is, then it describes these spirits and seems like what Peter wants to emphasize especially is that the deliverance of Noah's family through the waters of the flood is a picture of our deliverance through baptism that leads to our final salvation. As we take that stand for Christ, like Noah's family did in our, which I think is the key thing for his recipients. He wants them to, in a sense, die to sin, to be baptized, and to identify with Christ. And if you do that, he says the way that it delivers us, the way it saves us is not the removal of the filth flesh but the answer of a good conscience to God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and then who is in the right hand of God, πορευθεὶς (poreuteis) having gone into heaven. Now there are all kinds of details we can talk about here but the key thing I want to emphasize is that he repeats this very same verb πορευθεὶς (poreuteis) into heaven. It's the same verb we had back in chapter 3 verse 19 after going he preached to the spirits in prison and most every translation I check translates that he went in he went and preached to the spirits in prison in 3.19 and in verse 22 he has gone into heaven with angels and authorities and powers submitting to him Hmm. think what's important, what it suggests to us, and what I think is happening here is that what Peter is doing with the repetition of that verb, he is picking up where he was back in, previously in verse 19, and he is identifying the going where he preached in verse 19 with the going into heaven where angels and authorities and powers are submitted. to him. In other words, this preaching to the spirits in prison seems to me to be something that took place at the time of his ascension as he went into heaven, perhaps on his way, uh the path that he took to go to heaven to proclaim his victory to the farthest extent of the universe to every spirit and power and authority. He preached to these spirits. And then in verse 22, it says, uh he went, uh, who's at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven with these various powers and spirits submissive to him, being, under his authority. Now he has been given authority over them at the right hand of God. That's probably the better way to say it. So the repetition of that verb. πορευθεὶς (poreuteis) 'having gone' in verse 19 and again in verse 22, to me seems to connect those two goings together. And Peter wants us to put them together and realize that the going and preaching in verse 19 is part of and is connected with this going into heaven to the right hand of God. where all these authorities are submissive to him. So you could make different things of that perhaps, but to me it emphasizes that I think it supports the idea that Christ going to proclaim his victory was part of the ascension, part of his... going to the right hand of God in heaven. Hmm. Yeah, I think, sorry. Yeah, I think that that makes very good sense that he's proclaiming his victory to these people, the spirits that are imprisoned and that his proclamation that he has won, even beside the one hand of, by the right hand of the father and sitting there is a proclamation as well to all powers of authority that that they are lost in a sense, which we can find in like in Paul that he emphasizes that quite dramatically at times, Colossians in particular. I think that that makes very good sense and also Hebrews, it connects to the Christology of Hebrews as well, Yeah, I think I might disagree with you on the reading on made alive in the spirit. I think. I think it is by the spirit. So I think it's an instrumental use of the data there, but because I think. Yeah, so I think that it makes a better sense in how that word is normally used, but that's it. Yeah, have a, we could talk about spirit and flesh in first Peter. And I, I take them to be very much a sphere or a realm. and we, we, we may get into that some more later today here in our discussion, but, uh, but, yeah, it definitely involves the spirit. I agree with what you're saying. The spirit is involved here in this, but. How do you take, I mean, my question would be then, what does it mean where it means he died in the flesh? It's certainly not his old nature. ah I mean, he doesn't have a sinful nature. So I take them to be two different realms that are parallel to each other here. But I definitely hear what I definitely hear what you're saying. there are some very good people who definitely would agree with you on that. Yeah, but what I can see that the construction is a μέν (men)... δέ (de) construction, so there's clearly a parallel between the two. em So yeah, because I'm not sure how Peter will use it, generally speaking, but being alive, at least in the Greek thinking, would mean to be having a body made of flesh. And I don't think that that's different in the New Testament, but maybe there is something particular about the use here that he wants to flesh out something, maybe the pun intended, but he wants to emphasize something that has nothing to do with the materiality of his body, but rather to do with a realm potentially, which I'm not sure exactly what to think of. just here without thinking too much about it. Yeah. Well, that was, I definitely can understand what you're saying on that. And I take it because of the parallelism there. And I think the use of the word, σαρκί (sarki) and especially σαρκί (sarki) elsewhere in and σάρξ (sarx) elsewhere in First Peter, but yeah, good. yeah. Yeah, I've not looked into that. I'm working on something on Paul's use of σάρξ (sarx), but they may not necessarily be the same. So, yeah. So, maybe we should delve into the topic and say, like, what made you interested in the Septuagint quotations in 1 Peter? okay. Well. The main reason was because I did my, I've done a couple of doctor's degrees. The first one I did was at Dallas Theological Seminary and I did it on the use of the Old Testament, the hermeneutics of the use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter. How did Peter apply the Old Testament? How did he use it in his application to his recipients? Of course, doing that, I got into the Septuagint because most of the quotations, it's again, sometimes difficult to differentiate quotations from allusions, but most of the quotations in 1 Peter are from the Septuagint. So it was a natural. got into it. I didn't get into this. I took a course on Septuagint from Alan Ross when he was at Dallas Seminary, and that was a great course. But I really got into the Septuagint at the University of Minnesota when I was working in Classics. And I wrote my dissertation there on Septuagin Amos. So that then I learned much more about the Septuagint and have been working in it since. But when I first started studying First Peter, it was just necessary that I work in the Septuagint to some degree. Hmm, that's fascinating. eh We did talk a little bit about last time, em but maybe we should talk a little bit about it. But why is it that the New Testament authors and including one Peter often quotes the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible? Yeah. And I would say a few things and there are probably others that maybe I'm not thinking of at this moment, but they're of course writing in Greek. So it's a natural for them to use a Greek text where they can. Their recipients, most of them that they're writing to, especially with any Gentile mission or mission outside of Israel, like 1 Peter, in Asia Minor are people who know and speak Greek and most of them probably not Hebrew unless uh there may be a few and there could be some Jewish people involved among the recipients of 1 Peter but I take them to be primarily Gentile. So they could read from the Septuagint. and they might even be familiar with it and I presume it's what was read in their churches. There is evidence also there even some synagogues who would read from the Greek scriptures. so those would be the basic reasons that I understand why they would use the Septuagint. Yeah, I think that that's helpful because that sort of like fleshes out with maybe people sitting and why is it that we're not quoting the Hebrew because that's what the original language of our old what we call the Old Testament or what as many people also like to call it the Hebrew Bible. So I think it's helpful to talk about it in the sense that this is because this was the translation a little bit like like you wouldn't read Hebrew in in an English church or. Like, so if you come to Scotland, you will not go into our church and then we're reading in the Hebrew or in the Greek. It will be read in English. It may be some will prefer one translation over another, I guess that's the point is that this was the scriptures of the early Christians. And for some Jews, apparently as well, is that that was what they understood. There had not been. taught Hebrew. Yeah, Jews are in the diaspora who are outside of Israel, probably a second generation Jews. If it's anything like, for example, in America, second generation Chinese people who come to America normally speak English. Now, in my experience, being an interim pastor in a Chinese church, Chinese Christian church, which was a great experience. Most of the families worked to try to speak Chinese to their children at home and at holidays when they could. But still, the children, oh we had the church I was in, I was the interim pastor of the English congregation because they wanted their sermons in English. But there was also a Mandarin and a Cantonese congregation. There still is in that church. has a lot to do with the generation as you live outside the place where that is the native language for a generation, then you start to lose it. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I certainly want to, my child to speak Danish, but yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so, so definitely I understand the sentiment and that makes sense. m But maybe more like on actual direct quotations. em maybe some clearer illusions from the Septuagint we find. How many do we find in 1 Peter? The majority are from the Septuagint, but there are a couple places where it could very well be the Hebrew that he's quoting in, I think especially of the quotation in 1 Peter 2.8 from Isaiah chapter 8 verse 14. And then also perhaps in 1 Peter 4, 8, but in chapter 2 verse 8, the stone of stumbling. And the Rock of Offense from Isaiah 8.14 seems to be closer to the Hebrew, although many times the Hebrew and the Septuagint, it's hard to tell the difference between them. And then the other one would be the quotation from Proverbs 10, verse 12 in 1 Peter 4.8, love covers a multitude of sins. Hmm. Yeah. So those would be a couple that would be Hebrew, probably, but there are probably 11 or so, depending on how you count them that are from closer to the Septuagint. And so the Septuagint differs enough in those that we can we can say that they're apparently from the Septuagint. I think I think most people would say Peter primarily, generally agreed, quotes from the Septuagint. Not completely like I think the author of Hebrews does, but there may be a couple exceptions in 1 Peter. Yeah, that's fascinating. Yeah. And maybe it's worth clarifying because when you read commentaries or scholarly literature, you come across like quotation and quotations of or allusions to the Septuagint. But what is really the difference between a quotation and an allusion? and allusion, not illusion. you know, I'm going to read you. I have a book here that's really helpful if you're studying the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. It's uh Greg Beal's handbook on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Let me read you his definitions. They're short and I think they're not overly academic. They're easy to understand. A quotation is a direct citation of an Old Testament passage. that is easily recognizable by its clear and unique verbal parallelism. So it'd be a clear and unique verbal parallelism. so we have several of those in 1 Peter. If we go back to chapter two, for example, verse six, behold, I place in Zion an elect precious cornerstone. stone ahead of the corner and the one believing in it or him will not be put to shame. I mean, that's there's no question there. And if you look in the Greek New Testament, you've got two or three lines in italic showing you that it's a extended quotation from the Old Testament. Now, contrast to that uh might be in verses nine and ten. of chapter two, where we might call those illusions when we get down to that point. Mm. An allusion, Beal says, may simply be defined as a brief expression consciously intended by an author to be dependent on the Old Testament passage. So the author is dependent on the Old Testament passage, but it's just a couple words or a few words that you can see maybe from the context, but more likely. Hmm. from the word connections that he seems to be referring to an Old Testament passage here, but it's not a quotation. Maybe one that is, I think, I would say perhaps is alluding to an Old Testament passage is 1 Peter 3.22 Christ who is at the right hand of God having gone into heaven. That could very well be an allusion to Psalm 110.1. Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies a footstool. And the context here seems to me to support that, that that would be. That would be the idea there, but it's definitely not a quotation. Another one might be 1 Peter 2.9 and 10, where he describes them. You are an elect race. You are a royal priesthood, a people, a holy nation, a people for a possession. There are three different passages kind of put together there. Exodus 19.6, Isaiah 43.20 and 21. And then in verse 10, Hosea, who formerly were not a people, but are now the people of God who had not received mercy, but have received mercy. There there there are phrases from those. They're not they're not. clauses, they don't have a subject and a verb, but they're words picked up from those passages that some would call them quotations probably, some would call them allusions, but kind of depends on where you want to draw the line on those. Yeah, yeah. Because that's where I feel is a bit fussy sometimes is where where's the line between a quotation and an allusion because sometimes like, for example, Paul seems to adapt some of his quotations a little bit where he adds things that is important for his context, what he wants to like emphasize, not that he's like then taking things out of context and he's just using scripture as a proof text, but he He seems to sometimes em quote, so he does that in Romans 3.20 where he quotes Psalm 142,2 in the Septuagint, so that's 143. em But he adds ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. so he adds from deeds of the Law m to make a point in his own argument. So that's maybe a quotation, is maybe an allusion because he's adding things because he's... And the word order sometimes a little bit changed. But yeah, so I see the point, but yeah, it makes sense. Right. And there is debate about these, just like most exegetical issues. For example, in 1 Peter 2.9, you are a chosen nation, a chosen people. That comes from Isaiah 43. Then he moves to Exodus 19.6 with the next two descriptions. Then he goes back to Isaiah 43. So he puts the elect description first. because that's what he wants to emphasize, their election, that they are elect uh because of their relationship with Christ. They are the elect people of God. um so he's moved them around. He's kind of adapted them to his own language. Another one that might be an illusion would be in chapter four and verse Verse 14, if you were reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. Now some of that language like rests upon you comes from Isaiah 11.2, perhaps, where it talks about the branch and the spirit of God will rest upon him, the spirit of holiness and so on that will rest upon him and he will rule and reign. over the nations in the eschaton and that passage talks about his reign over the earth. And that same spirit rests upon you, it says, if you are reviled for the name of Christ. The fact that you're willing to be reviled for Christ and identifies with him shows that you have the spirit upon you. That seems to be Peter's point. But again, it's not a direct quotation and I've been in papers where people argue that it's not even referring to that basically. It's not a quotation of it. I agree it may not be a quotation, but it seems to me that's the passage that Peter has in mind there, Isaiah 11.2. So again, it's probably best to call it maybe an allusion. Hmm. Yeah, that's helpful. and now we're talking about these different, em you mentioned Isaiah, Exodus and a few other places. So what parts of the Septuagint is coded in one Peter and what does it tell us anything specifically significant about how they're used? Well, he quotes, I think, four or five times. I don't have the exact list in front of me here, but four or five of his quotations are from Isaiah. We've got two of them right there in chapter two. We've got one at the end of chapter one. We've got this one here we just looked at, if quotation or allusion in chapter four. So ah there's a lot of reference to Isaiah. I think that's his main source. There's also a lot of reference to Psalm and it seems like very interesting that he, with his sojourning emphasis and the fear of the Lord emphasis uses Psalm 34 quite a bit through the book of 1 Peter. And Psalm 34, remember the psalmist says, I will teach you the fear of the Lord and That's a very important psalm and there's a long quotation from it in 1 Peter chapter 3 verses 9 through 12 I believe it is. 10 through maybe 10 through 12 there in 1 Peter chapter 3. Yeah, it's verses 10 through 12. So, that's I think it is Septuagint. 33, but it's 34 in the Hebrew Bible. Those would be the ones that come to my mind that are the most important. Peter chooses his quotations often around themes. And I would love to talk about this. Maybe we could talk about it just a little bit here today. I mean, when you talk about the main theology of 1 Peter, the main indicative statement of the book is in chapter 2 verses 4 through 10. And uh really the main statement is probably in verse 10, you who formerly were not a people are now the people of God and who you who had not received mercy have now received mercy. He wants his people to know, he wants his recipients to know they are the people of God. And I think he proves that in this passage by quoting from the Old Testament in verses 6–10. In verses six, seven and eight, he's got three quotations that are all connected by the use of the word λίθος (lithos) the elect stone and they, the first one, behold, I place in Zion and a stone, a cornerstone, elect and precious. And the one who believes on him, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ (ep' auto) that's not in the Hebrew, but it is in the Septuagint, the one who believes in him will not be put to shame. So God's talking about a stone that he has placed in Zion in the Old Testament context and the people of Israel should trust in that stone that he has placed in Zion rather than making treaties with other nations. I think in the Old Testament context it refers to the Davidic king, the Davidic king that God has placed. They're supposed to follow his leadership and supposed to trust in God who placed him there. Then in verse seven, Another stone quotation. To you, therefore, is the honor you who are believing, but to the unbelieving, the stone which the builders rejected. Now here we go to Psalm 118, 117 in the Septuagint 22, the King of Israel who comes back from battle and the people are welcoming him back and they're talking about the stone that the builders, the world builders of this day have rejected. God has made the head of the corner. That means the foundation of the house he is building. Again, it's the Davidic King. And then in verse eight, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and Isaiah 8.14 describes Yahweh that he is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to the people of Israel. We've got three stone quotations all referring to Jesus, who I think even in verse eight is the, Jesus is part of the Godhead. is God and he's making that point. It's the King and it is God that, the Davidic King, that God has placed in Zion the elect stone. And so I read that to be Davidic fulfillment. In other words, Jesus is fulfilling Davidic promise. and he is the divinic messiah. Well, so therefore, what does that mean in verses nine and 10? You therefore are a people. You are a people for a possession, Isaiah 43. You are the people of God. Exodus 19.6, verse 10. Hosea 1.6, and 9, you who formerly were not a people are now the people of God. And those are new covenant fulfillment things. In the new covenant, you are the people of God. Now we could go farther because what he is proving in these verses, he stated in verses four and five. Verse four earlier in the chapter talks about, towards whom coming a stone living In other words, resurrected from the dead here by men rejected, but with God elect and precious. And you yourselves as living stones are being built up a spiritual house. All kinds of all kinds of Davidic imagery here, but it's not just Davidic. It's a it's new covenant. You are a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices. acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. So what I read, what Peter is doing here, he is proving that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah who inaugurates the New Covenant and they are therefore participants in the New Covenant. They are the people of God. And I don't think the contrast here in the quoting of the New Testament is Israel and the church. I think the contrast is Old covenant new covenant. You are the new covenant people of God That's what he is proving here and I don't think so. I don't think we should use this passage to You know for the kind of like talking about Israel replacing the church replacing Israel or something like that I think what he's talking about is what he's talking about is that the new covenant in Christ the Messiah has been inaugurated you are now the spiritual people of God the spirit promised in the new covenant as is yours. have been begotten language he uses at least twice in chapter one. You have been begotten. You are part of the new covenant and therefore Jews and Gentiles, everyone who believes in this age is experiencing the fulfillment of new covenant promise as the people of God, all believers in this age. So that's the way I read Peter's development here of That's the key point of the book, I think, that he uses six key passages, three stone quotations and three people uh scriptures from the Septuagint, except for the one that in the Septuagint have this language, and he ties these together, three together connected around the stone and three connected around the people. Gezeres Shavah, I think is the Jewish term for this, where you take two passages having the same word and you read them in light of each other. In Jewish hermeneutics, they often use, they sometimes use that kind of approach to reading scripture. And I think that's what Peter is doing here, tying these together to make his point. So that is, to me, the key point of 1 Peter. That is the essence. Mm. of the foundational theological point of 1 Peter right there. Hmm, yeah. I think I wouldn't disagree with that. I think that there are more than one point, I think, in in em I think that there is also an element of holiness as well, because he does quote, quote Leviticus in the beginning em of the book. And I think I think that's why we have a lot of imperatives in the book, em personally, em is that that there is So he's like laying the foundation in the introduction, saying you have rebirth, you have this inheritance and that salvation that's awaits and you rejoice over that and you will rejoice exceedingly when Jesus returns, when the Messiah returns. And then he goes on to talk about how we should conduct ourselves. But I think that ties into what you've just been talking about, I think, is that that in the new covenant, we now are a spiritual house, we are a new temple that is being built. Which is quite fascinating as well. I think if they tie together, it's quite interesting theology there. I don't have any concluding thoughts on it, I just think that it's very interesting. Well, it's interesting in that light, Daniel, that he uses the idea of obedience as referring to our initial faith in God, that we became obedient. We are called children of obedience, children who are characterized by obedience. Chapter one, verse 14. And that kind of language ties in greatly with with holiness, as does, I think, the you know, when you enter into a covenant. Mount Sinai they said all that you say we will obey we will do it which which definitely involves the covenant if there if there's a covenant idea here at the basis of this that it involves the fact that there is look there is loyalty to God in that covenant being the covenant partner and holiness to God now that's good I appreciate what you're saying so many things, it's hard to bring them all together. Maybe one thing, and I don't know how much longer we have, but maybe just to summarize here and maybe even to summarize our time, depending on your thinking. these kinds of studies of the use of the Old Testament and the New Testament would be pretty hard to do without using Greek and Hebrew. And I think if anyone wants to try and tie the scriptures together and really get into studying the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament that you, you know, we can definitely do some of that from our English Bibles, but really, it really helps here if you can make the connections between words and make the connections between the texts in the original language. And it opens it up and it's one of the ways where we study the Bible, maybe on a deeper level, we are able to go a little bit farther in connecting scriptures and biblical theology and seeing the connections and developments in the Bible where the original languages, which I know are important to both of us, are very important and very helpful. Yes, I think that's brilliant. I think a couple more questions I have. I wanted to tie in the Isaiah quotation from chapter one, verse 24 and 25. Because it's not a direct quotation, it's a little bit like what Peter, what I'd mentioned earlier about Paul's quotation, that he adds a little bit, retracts a little bit in order to make a point. what is going on here? Well, he definitely, I mean, I have quite a two or three, two, at least two pages on it in an article that I wrote not too long ago on the Septuagint in this book. I don't know if that comes across the dictionary of the, what is the dictionary of the New Testament use of the Old Testament by Beal and Carson. And I have an article in there on the Septuagint. It's on pages 756 to 757 where I deal with this in at least in summary fashion. And I have two pages of pretty small print almost that I just where I discuss this. So it's not, I don't know how much we can get into it today, but I would call it a quotation. would call it a quotation. It definitely is. There are a couple of small changes. but it's definitely a quotation and both the Septuagint and First Peter leave out a few lines here where it repeats, but First Peter agrees with the Septuagint in his quotation of it to a large degree. He makes two small changes that I would emphasize to you. And I think they're very important. ah The second one is very easy. verse 25, in the Septuagint, it says, the word of our God remains forever. So it's the word from God. In 1 Peter, it's the word of the Lord. And the Lord in this context, if you go into chapter two and pre-previous, is Christ. And I think what we have here is an objective genitive. the word concerning Christ remains forever, if that makes sense. So he is talking about here, I think, if you go back to verse 23, you've been born again, not out of a corruptible seed, but an incorruptible seed by the living and abiding word of God. And of course you have to go back to chapter one, verses 10 through 12. This word of God is a word about Christ. They were speaking about Christ even in the Old Testament scriptures before Christ came and searching and trying to understand these things. So how can we be born again and love as Peter wants us to love through this word about Christ? Well, Verse for all flesh is as grass and all the glory of it as the flower of the grass. The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of the Lord abides forever. We can live this life because we have been begotten by this word. Now, the second main change Peter makes is in the second line. All flesh is as grass and in the Septuagint it says all the glory of man is as the flower of the grass. is, I think that the flower of the grass, yeah. So in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew it's contrasting the corruptibility of man and his word with the reliability of the word of God. But I don't think Peter's doing that. Peter goes from a masculine man noun to a feminine pronoun, αὐτῆς (autēs) What does it refer to? Flesh. All flesh is as grass. and all the glory of it, all the glory of the flesh is as the flower of the grass. uh I think uh that, see if I can find to try and summarize this for you here. uh Peter is contrasting, it seems to me, the realm of the flesh with the uh with the uh glory, with uh the corruptibility of mankind. And I mean, we could spend a lot of time on this, probably more time than we have today, but you know, it... It can't be mankind here because he has described already in the previous verses that believers have been begotten with an incorruptible seed. Okay. So this could not apply to believers. oh what the flesh, I think if we trace the use of flesh elsewhere in 1 Peter, here's what I put in my article. It's a realm in which Christ and Christians live, chapter 4, verse 2. It's where they suffer and die, chapter 3.18 and 4.01. It's where they are confined to physical bodies, chapter 3 verse 21. And that realm has standards by which it judges and decides that are contrasted with God's standards. We are judged according to the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. Often it's contrasted with the spirit. Gopelt says it's, Gopelt calls it human existence, yoked to death. The flesh is human existence, yoked to death. And Michael's defines it as the realm of physical life, the realm of physical life. So I won't go any far, but just let me summarize with this. I think what Peter is saying here, he is saying that everything of this realm is like grass, all flesh. and all the glory of it is like the flower of the grass. And he is contrasting the things that don't have a new birth, as he just talked about up in verse 23, being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible with things that have that rebirth and are in this realm of living under the control of the spirit and by the spirit. So. I think Peter makes a major change there in that. And that's partly, partly where I get my idea of what flesh is in first Peter, primarily based on this. I would encourage you, if you're interested in it further, take a look at my article in, in the dictionary, the dictionary, and I go into it in more detail there. Yeah, sure. Which edition of it is it? Is it the first edition or? As far as I know, there's only one, but I don't know. just came out a couple years ago. Sure, yeah. yeah. I just thought that there was two editions, but I may be wrong. Yeah. one is 2023, so it just came out. It was the first edition. very good. Yeah, so I think I have I think this is a fascinating discussion. I have some ideas. I've actually argued that πᾶσα σὰρξ (pasa sarx) in the Septuagint never refers to anything. It refers to the material of humankind never in a negative sense. And I think that's what Paul's pickups picks up on. So and I think one of the things that Paul does is that he And in this case is that when he talks negatively about σὰρξ (sarx) it's always because of sin. em And I don't know if that can be applied in one peter as well. Well, it's more of the, it's where we're confined to physical bodies, the limitations of this realm, ah where we are uh judged by the standards of men in this realm rather than the standards of God and so on. So I think it might. Yeah, yes, it's whether we are saying two different things the same thing two different ways or is it? Yeah, yeah, that could be interesting to have a look at. So I probably have to read your article then. Well, yeah, take a look at it. See what you think. I appreciate it. If you have any feedback, that'd be great. I'll have a look at that. But maybe we should ask a little bit more meta question. Is that what does the quotations in 1 Peter tell us about the overall argument of the letter? And how does the shape his argument? We have touched upon it a little bit, but maybe you can sort of clarify it. The quotation from uh Isaiah 40. how could all the quotations within the in Peter, how they shape the overall message of the letter and the argument that he's wanting to push forward. Well, okay, think personally, think for 1 Peter is trying to convince these people of is that they are participants in the new covenant. They are the people of God. And even though some of them have died, the new covenant has come. They are in that relationship by their new birth and that they're, know, There is a further fulfillment of these things that when the glory part comes and so they are supposed to, of course, remain faithful and uh trust God in this and look for that final fulfillment of these things. The foundation for their identity is in chapter two, I think, the passage we just went through. Hmm. what he seems to be doing in the very first part there, chapter one is talking about the fact that they are to trust in the word of God and that quotation from chapter one, 24 and 25 is part of what he says in the next few verses about desire the guileless milk. It's not It's not uh of this realm. It's the milk of the Word of God, the milk of the gospel message, I take it, to be there that you are supposed to desire. Otherwise, mean, he uses sometimes to, he uses Old Testament quotations like the one in chapter three, verses 10 through 12, to summarize his argument. But he switches there where it talks in the Old Testament about In chapter three, verses 10 through 12, the blessed life on this earth, Peter seems to be applying it to the blessing that's going to come in the future. He seems to be eschatologizing it, applying it to final deliverance and realizing that this promise is not going to be fulfilled in this life. It's something you will have in the future. Hmm. Again, think the main development, the main foundation is in chapter two, verses four through ten. That's what everything builds on, theologically, I think. Yeah, that's helpful. So I've had more questions, but I think we come to the part in the podcast where I would like to ask the question that we usually ask is that how can the viewers and listeners apply this conversation about the everyday walk with Christ? Well, maybe in the words of 1 Peter 2, desire the guileless λογικὸν (logikon) milk. I take that to be rational milk of the word of God, the logical in a sense. In other words, the Bible is the most fascinating book in the world. is one book. with one developing message that goes book by book by book ah and interrelated, not necessarily just with the next book that follows, but interrelated with each other developing one big story that I encourage you to delve into it, desire it, as newborn babies, like newborn babies, desire milk and crave for it. And part of that idea of desire there, that word means they realize they need it because we need the word of God. We need it for our spiritual health and our spiritual wellbeing. And so my, I guess my main application today would be according to first Peter, desire that milk, especially the milk of the, of the gospel. He seems to be talking about here. In other words, scripture as it's fulfilled in Christ. Scripture as we see it read through the lens of Christ as Christ as the fulfillment of all of scripture desire that milk that you might grow to final deliverance to final salvation and and so the Christian life is Christian life is a life of growing in the word not a life of just looking back to what God did for us in the past Yeah, that's a wonderful application. think that's what this is about. what is it all about? Like when we follow Christ, it's all about following him and listening to his word. So it should be filled with τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα (to logikon adulon gala). That's what we should desire to say that in Greek, which you just have been talking about. Yeah, so the reasoning of of the undiluted milk or pure milk. Yeah, thank you for that wonderful application. And thank you for joining me on the podcast, Ed. It's been a pleasure. Great to be with you again, Daniel. And I really appreciate your insights on so many of these things. I appreciate them. Lord bless you and your continued study of his word. And Lord bless your family. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you very much. Yeah, and to you guys out there. I'll see you in the next one But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like. It really helps us create more episodes like this one. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.