Who is Peter addressing?

[Devin P]

Who is the royal priesthood in verse 9? The Levites? Christians? Peter's direct successors? Is Peter himself referring to himself as the living Stone that the builders rejected?

1 Peter 2
'1Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. 2Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

The Living Stone and a Chosen People
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual housea to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”b

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”c
8and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”d

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light"

He addresses who he's speaking to within the first verse of chapter 1 - the dispersion.

Israel is prophesied to be scattered amongst the gentiles all throughout the old testament. It's in nearly almost every book in the old testament.

Here's an example:
Amos 9:9
9For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

Here's the Jews referring to it in John:

John 7:35
35¶Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

In verse 1 of 1 Peter 1:1
1¶Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

All throughout the OT God prophesied through various prophets that - due to Israel's disobedience and their desire to invent and follow the tradition of man as opposed to the truth God gives us in His word, that they'd be cast out and scattered amongst the gentiles to forget who they were. They'd pick up traditions of the gentiles they were living amongst, and forget about God's commands.

But that one day (the days after Jesus gave Himself for us) we'd come to know that we have inherited lies, that we were scattered, that we are the Israel of God, and that we have been living in disobedience and lies, and when we'd realize this that we'd ditch tradition for a life of truth.

Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and thingswherein there is no profit.

Peter references this concept several times, referencing prophecies and prophets regarding this "mystery" (as Paul calls it) all throughout the first and second chapter.

Scripture tells us that if you believe in Jesus, that you become Israel. But, as a child of God and a citizen of the Israel of God, you give up tradition and desire Him and His truth. Obedience, and the spirit, not the flesh. The flesh is sin, the spirit is obedience.

So in short, you. You are the royal priesthood. If you desire Him and His truth more than the traditions you've been born into, and obedience to Him more than tradition. Then you are part of that priesthood.

The next step is to learn what obedience is.

 

[friend of]

Fulfilled - yes. But abolished? NO - not for Jews.

Jews are still called to faith in Jesus today.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Peter clearly refers to the living stone as "Him", therefore he is obviously not claiming the title for himself. Jesus Christ, and no-one else, is the stone upon Whom His Church is built.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

No. Paul had Timothy circ'd because he WAS a Jew. (thru his mother) Acts 16 In doing so, he obligated Tim to the "whole law." Gal 5.3

Verse 2
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Clearly Paul is not supporting circumcision.

 

[Dave-W]

Because all except for a couple verses in Hebrews are about Jesus being a priest in the Order of Melchizedek.

Absolutely. He (in the human side) was from Judah, not the priestly line of Levi. (although I believe there is biblical evidence that Mary His mother was from Levi)

None of the verses in Hebrews says we are priests.

Yes. There is no mention of "priests" coming from the Gentiles. That was my point.

BUT - if you DO want something that says there will be Gentile priests, you have to look at the end of Isaiah:

Isa 66.18 “For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory. 19 I will set a sign among them and will send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Tubal and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they will declare My glory among the nations. 20 Then they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as a grain offering to the Lord, on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 I will also take some of them for priests and for Levites,” says the Lord.​

 

[Dave-W]

Peter clearly refers to the living stone as "Him", therefore he is obviously not claiming the title for himself. Jesus Christ, and no-one else, is the stone upon Whom His Church is built.

Next verse:

1 Peter 2:5
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.​

 

[Dave-W]

Verse 2
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Clearly Paul is not supporting circumcision.

And yet Paul circumcised Timothy, thereby obligating him to the whole law as verse 3 of your quote clearly states.

If Paul was so opposed to circumcision, why would he intentionally do that?

 

[Hank77]

Verse 2
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Clearly Paul is not supporting circumcision.

My understanding.....
The only reason a Gentile would have had, under these circumstances, to be circumcised would be to become a Jew under the Old Covenant law, which wasn't necessary under the New Covenant law.

Timothy was circumcised in order to preach the Gospel to unbelieving Jews, not to bring him under the OC law and it didn't bring him under the OC law. Circumcision for Timothy was like a woman or man covering their hair when preaching the Gospel to Orthodox Jews or a woman wearing a hijab when preaching to a Muslim. Paul said when he preached to the Jews he became a Jew [acted as a Jew under the law and Jewish traditions] for the Gospel's sake.

Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

His mother was a Jew by birth and a believer of the Gospel, BUT his father was a Gentile, presumably not a believer in the Gospel and obviously not a circumcised proselyte to Judaism.

Act 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Paul always went to the synagogues of the unbelieving Jews to preach the Gospel to them before he preached to the Gentiles. These Jews would not have welcomed an uncircumcised Timothy among them, they would not have listened to him. Neither would they have listened to Paul because of his association with an uncircumcised/unclean person. Remember Peter's dream/vision.
Paul's circumcision of Timothy was a necessary compromise for the Gospel's sake. It did not place Timothy under the OC law.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

My understanding.....
The only reason a Gentile would have had, under these circumstances, to be circumcised would be to become a Jew under the Old Covenant law, which wasn't necessary under the New Covenant law.

Timothy was circumcised in order to preach the Gospel to unbelieving Jews, not to bring him under the OC law and it didn't bring him under the OC law. Circumcision for Timothy was like a woman or man covering their hair preaching the Gospel to Orthodox Jews. Paul said when he preached to the Jews he became a Jew [acted as a Jew under the law and Jewish traditions] for the Gospel's sake.

Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

His mother was a Jew by birth and a believer of the Gospel, BUT his father was a Gentile, presumably not a believer in the Gospel and obviously not a circumcised proselyte to Judaism.

Act 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Paul always went to the synagogues of the unbelieving Jews to preach the Gospel to them before he preached to the Gentiles. These Jews would not have welcomed an uncircumcised Timothy among them, they would not have listened to him. Neither would they have listened to Paul because of his association with an uncircumcised/unclean person. Remember Peter's dream/vision.
Paul's circumcision of Timothy was a necessary compromise for the Gospel's sake. It did not place Timothy under the OC law.

I agree, he did it to make witnessing to the Jews easier. He was not subjecting him to the law nor putting anyone under the law.

 

[Hank77]

(although I believe there is biblical evidence that Mary His mother was from Levi)

? if you can just give the scripture for that, I don't want to start an off topic discussion. Thanks.

 

[mukk_in]

Who is the royal priesthood in verse 9? The Levites? Christians? Peter's direct successors? Is Peter himself referring to himself as the living Stone that the builders rejected?

1 Peter 2
'1Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. 2Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

The Living Stone and a Chosen People
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual housea to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”b

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”c
8and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”d

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light"

All sanctified saints are the Lord's priests. That includes you.

 

[Doug Melven]

Yes. There is no mention of "priests" coming from the Gentiles. That was my point.

Hebrews is about the superiority of Jesus Christ.
All those verses you cited don't mention any Jew or Gentile being a priest Besides Christ Himself.
There are a couple verses that refer to the Levitical Priesthood. And those verses are referring to the superiority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
So your point that no Gentiles were priests could only be made if those verses said Jews were to be priests under the New Covenant.

 

[SolomonVII]

Please post which verses in 1 Peter, tell you that he is only addressing Jewish believers. Thanks

One thing I noticed is that incident where Paul, who spoke vehemently against circumcision, took the two culturally Greek Jews who had not been circumcised away to be circumcised.
I don't know the answer, but it is fair to say that we are still struggling with how people who are very different can live together and be different and the same all at once.

 

[Hank77]

One thing I noticed is that incident where Paul, who spoke vehemently against circumcision, took the two culturally Greek Jews who had not been circumcised away to be circumcised.

I know he did Timothy but I don't remember the second person you are referring to.

I don't know the answer, but it is fair to say that we are still struggling with how people who are very different can live together and be different and the same all at once.

Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you.

Yes, we struggle as fleshy mankind but does God? Or does He look beyond those differences and looks at us as really being who we are in our hearts. Do we love God and do we love each other. I think that is why Paul says there is neither Jew or Greek in Christ. That wall of separation was removed in Christ.
I find it unfortunate when as men we rebuild walls.

 

[SolomonVII]

I know he did Timothy but I don't remember the second person you are referring to.

Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you.

Yes, we struggle as fleshy mankind but does God? Or does He look beyond those differences and looks at us as really being who we are in our hearts. Do we love God and do we love each other. I think that is why Paul says there is neither Jew or Greek in Christ. That wall of separation was removed in Christ.
I find it unfortunate when as men we rebuild walls.

For sure it could have been Timothy. I never bothered to do the research, just recalled the incident which is intriguing on its own.
The question is why did Paul bother to do this at all?
Circumsision was a wall. Greeks abhorred this practice from the times of the Maccabees. Like dietary laws, for Jews these rituals were overtly meant to be walls that kept Jews apart?
So why did Paul take Timothy to be circumcised, at the same time he was criticizing circumcision as a unnecessary wall that was not a partnof the New Covenant faith?

 

[Hank77]

For sure it could have been Timothy. I never bothered to do the research, just recalled the incident which is intriguing on its own.
The question is why did Paul bother to do this at all?
Circumsision was a wall. Greeks abhorred this practice from the times of the Maccabees. Like dietary laws, for Jews these rituals were overtly meant to be walls that kept Jews apart?
So why did Paul take Timothy to be circumcised, at the same time he was criticizing circumcision as a unnecessary wall that was not a partnof the New Covenant faith?

I answered the question to the best of my understanding in post #48. Please read that and then tell me what you think of it. Thanks.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes, we struggle as fleshy mankind but does God? Or does He look beyond those differences and looks at us as really being who we are in our hearts. Do we love God and do we love each other. I think that is why Paul says there is neither Jew or Greek in Christ. That wall of separation was removed in Christ.
I find it unfortunate when as men we rebuild walls.

I think where my line of questioning is if we can not look beyond the differences, as still love each other? Are we able to accept the walls that others place around themselves to define their own in group from the rest of us, or is love contingent on all walls being torn down first, and everybody sharing a uniform set of values?
What I am thinking is that neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ begins by Jew and Gentile accepting each others differences as both real and legitimate, and Christianity not being contingent on being one or the other or some amalgamation of both. In Paul’s day the tendency was Jews demanding Gentiles conform to thei practices. Later it became more about Judaizing principles being pushed out in order to conform to the dominant Christian culture of the Gentiles.
Is unity possible without conformity?

 

[Hank77]

I think where my line of questioning is if we can not look beyond the differences, as still love each other? Are we able to accept the walls that others place around themselves to define their own in group from the rest of us, or is love contingent on all walls being torn down first, and everybody sharing a uniform set of values?
What I am thinking is that neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ begins by Jew and Gentile accepting each others differences as both real and legitimate, and Christianity not being contingent on being one or the other or some amalgamation of both. In Paul’s day the tendency was Jews demanding Gentiles conform to thei practices. Later it became more about Judaizing principles being pushed out in order to conform to the dominant Christian culture of the Gentiles.
Is unity possible without conformity?

I thought that was maybe where you were going. Yes, I think it is.
Polycarp didn't agree Anicetus on which day the Resurrection should be celebrated. They debated and still didn't agree but they part ways in full unity in Christ. I know that seems like a small thing compared to some differences we have in doctrines and traditions today but I don't imagine they saw it that way.
We should be more like Polycarp and Anicetus. Agree to disagree and not let it build walls, at least not walls without doors.

 

[ac28]

The only Gentile Peter ever ministered to was Cornelius in Acts 10. The only reason he did that was to help pave the way for the ministry of Paul, the ONLY apostle to the Gentiles. Peter hated every moment of it. No Gentile will ever be a member of the all-Jewish priesthood, unless they are a proselyte.

 

[Hank77]

The only Gentile Peter ever ministered to was Cornelius in Acts 10. The only reason he did that was to help pave the way for the ministry of Paul, the ONLY apostle to the Gentiles. Peter hated every moment of it. No Gentile will ever be a member of the all-Jewish priesthood, unless they are a proselyte.

Peter hated it? Where are you getting that from?

You don't think that when Peter was eating with Gentiles that he wasn't ministering to them? In fact, if Peter hated that the Gentiles were included why would he eat them?