Introduction to 1 Peter Study: The Rhetorical Universe
intro-to-first-peter-study
A STUDY OF FIRST PETER: THE RHETORICAL UNIVERSE
BY J. MICHAEL STRAWN
FIRST THEMATIC: THE SUM OF FAITH (1 PETER 1:1-2)
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY:
Because of the teachings of Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th century, people have been accustomed to seeing reality as having a duality, or two parts: spirit and material; man (the observer) and his surroundings (the observed). We call this disparity between the two parts the Cartesian Partition after Renee Decartes.
We have believed that our temporal circumstances–the events and objects which form our experience–are bounded by what we might call an event horizon. The Cartesian partition has fostered the idea that we, as observers, can correctly analyze and assess what goes on inside of the event horizon: a dualism in which man’s intelligence reigns supreme.
However, the Word of God creates a much larger framework for our experience by what we might call eternal boundary conditions. Because all things operate on the basis of the Word and its power, we can correctly say that we do not live as observers and participants in temporal event horizons (what we might also call local phenomena). Instead, we are surrounded by, and directly affected by, what we might call the noncommutative influences of God.
We call the power of God non-commutative because it is uni-directional: it originates from God and has direct effect on the temporal world (local phenomena, event horizons, all the things defined by the Cartesian partition.)
Thus, instead of reality being composed of two parts as the Enlightenment thinkers postulated, it is more accurately seen as triadic: the seen world of human experience, the unseen and causative world of God’s power, and the linking between the two by means of the stacked indices of noncommutative forces ( The Holy Spirit, revelation, faith, and the manipulation of symbols.)
First Peter deals specifically with these issues, as we shall see. Peter urges Christians to see the accidents of their local phenomenon as not only things to be observed but more importantly as elements under the subsuming, noncommutative power of God. From that, they will be able to bear up under trials and rejoice in the building of their precious faith which will be firmly based in the rhetorical, not in the seen.
ELEMENTS OF THE THEMATIC:
The center section shows the supposed Cartesian partition: in one small box at the right center is man, and the box to the left of him is what we would call temporal circumstances, including the events and objects that make up our experience.
The large box shows that these two elements are surrounded by– and subsumed by–the Rhetorical– or Word-powered–universe. God, who stands outside space, time, and temporal events, puts eternal boundary conditions on all things. With uni-directional or noncommutative power, He directly affects both man and his temporal circumstances.
What we call accidents–all material events whether intentional or not–are always subsumed as well by the power of God over those accidents.
BIBLICAL TEXT:
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood.
“Grace and peace be yours in abundance.”
1 Peter 1:1-2
GENERALIZATIONS DERIVED FROM THE TEXT AND ILLUSTRATED BY THE THEMATIC:
1). One key element Peter will show us is that our contextual intelligence must be displaced by an analog intelligence. When our intelligence and thinking processes are shaped solely by our material existence, experience, and statistical regularity, we can call that intelligence a contextual intelligence.
Statistical regularity is what we observe and erroneously call “laws of nature”–but which are really just the reflections of the way God maintains His own determined relationships between objects. Just because things happen routinely and repeatedly (you drop an object and it falls up rather than down, you place a metal object into the jugular vein of an animal, it dies, etc.) does not mean that these accidents/events happen because of laws that force results, but because God has previously determined that there will be relationships which He will either sustain or suspend according to His own purposes.
We have attempted in the past to organize our thoughts about these relationships by ignoring God’s deliberate involvement in each of them. Because of this erroneous atheistic view of nature, we have assumed that we live in a formal universe, instead of one sustained by the Word–a rhetorical universe.
An analog intelligence, on the other hand, is one which is shaped not by context but by the mind of God, and sees His involvement in all aspects of the material world. That analog intelligence is the effect of eternal boundary conditions, especially those reflected in Scripture, which is itself a construct of the mind of God. All analog intelligence has revelation–not human observation– as its unique source.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2: the use of the passive tense shows that believers are the object of the actions of God in their present circumstances: “scattered” , “have been chosen”, “according to the foreknowledge of god the Father,” “by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,” “for obedience” “sprinkling by His blood.” They, and their circumstances are subject to the absolutes that God predicates. Their analog intelligence, formed by revelation, would displace any contextually-based observations about their circumstances. They would have to conclude that the foreknowledge and power of God would be more powerful than what they see.
Examples of this displacement of contextual intelligence elsewhere in Scripture: Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego’s statements to Nebuchadnezzar; David’s statements to scoffers before killing Goliath; Peter and John before the Sanhedrin in Acts 3.
2). The displacement of contextual intelligence by analog intelligence overrides “empirical truth.” Empirical truth refers to those conclusions we draw based upon our senses and our logic upon observing our surroundings.
The two kinds of intelligence–contextual and analog–continually war against one another. 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 show that they are not commensurate, nor can they co-exist. Each is mutually exclusive. What we observe and analyze–empirical “truth”–must be properly seen as inferior to analog intelligence based upon revelation.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2: Peter sets the stage for showing believers that they must operate on analog intelligence by showing them that their present condition of “scatteredness” is something that God is subsuming by His view of them as having been long chosen and sanctified by Him.
Examples of analog intelligence that overrode contextual intelligence’s “empirical truth” elsewhere in Scripture: The insistence of Joshua and Caleb that the iconic observations that they and the ten other spies brought back about the impregnability of the Promised Land–what they observed was accurate, but the conclusions that Joshua and Caleb reached were those which took into account revelation as a superior source of knowledge about the “truth” of the situation.
3) The world sees contextual intelligence as fact, while believing that analog intelligence (that which operates within the framework of eternal boundary conditions) is merely hypothesis. Because what we observe with our senses seems to be most accurate, we often think that those things we apprehend through contextual intelligence are most factual, while those things which are revealed but not necessarily comprehended through contextual intelligence as hypothetical or only theoretical in nature.
God does not call us to ignore the information provided through our own senses, reasoning, or observation. However, He does require that we put such things in the category of speculative unless they are confirmed by the superior source of information and truth: God’s revelation.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2, God acknowledges that Christians may indeed find themselves in scattered, living as strangers in real places like Galatia, Pontus, etc. However, such observations of their condition must be tempered by the subsuming knowledge (only available through analog intelligence, not from contextual observation) that God has foreseen the circumstances and has in fact chosen individuals to be the object of His love in a way that more than compensates for their suffering.
Other Scriptural examples of contextual intelligence shown to be inferior to analog intelligence: Elisha’s prayer that his servant would be able to see the invisible armies of God surrounding the besieged city–armies which indeed destroyed the enemy forces that Elisha’s servant so feared.
4) With the superintending influence of analog intelligence overriding contextual intelligence in the life of a believer, interpretation of events and circumstances is taken out of human hands.
The recognition that analog intelligence is in every sense more accurate, more comprehensive, and superior to contextual intelligence is of great advantage to the believer. Not only does it resolve problems engendered by pluralism and human will, but it is a comfort and a relief to believers to be assured that by adopting the viewpoint of God, they are safe in every sense.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2 we see the beginnings of Peter’s argument that in every sense believers are being actively protected through the foreknowledge and care of God–despite any contextual observations to the contrary. They are relieved of the responsibility of “explaining” to themselves or to others the supposed causes of their suffering.
Other Scriptural examples of this principle: Joseph’s speech to his brothers after the death of their father Jacob.
5.) The principle of the displacement of contextual intelligence by analog intelligence can properly be called “the sum of faith”–an actual map of all other pragmatic examples in Scripture. This principle is not introduced by Peter–much to the contrary, it is inherent to all faithful men and women of God throughout Biblical history.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2, Peter calls believers to an old, old story: God has always allowed His people to flourish in difficult situations–to the exact extent that they adopt His viewpoint of their circumstances.
Other examples of this principle in Scripture: 1 Samuel 17, Numbers 13, Genesis 22.
6). Revelation becomes a portage, or means of conveying, analog intelligence. God’s conveying of accurate information about our circumstances is accomplished through the mechanism of revelation, which moves us out of one frame of reference (contextual) into another (analog.) In looking at the thematic, we can see that Peter brings information from the large, outer square that sheds light on the conditions inside the two smaller ones. Furthermore, the effect of this portage is that the mind of the believer is transported to the viewpoint outside of self and outside of local phenomena inside temporal event horizons.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2, we see the mechanism of this portage. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, writes to believers, conveying information they would not otherwise have derived from contextual observation of their scattered condition.
Other Scriptural examples: Hebrews 12 (setting sights on Jesus); 1 Corinthians 2:10-16.
7). Any doctrine of experience or physical theory that does not begin with such primitive displacement of contextual intelligence by analog intelligence is degenerate (not in the moral but in the qualitative sense.) Such contextual intelligence cannot be regarded as benign in any sense, but active in the sense that its tendency is to override the understanding of eternal boundary conditions. Nor can the ideal of analog intelligence as a “supplement” or mere addition to the degenerate concept of contextual intelligence stand. Similarly, contextual intelligence is powerless to correct analog intelligence in any sense.
In conclusion, analog intelligence cannot be added to nor improved by contextual observations. Contextual intelligence must be displaced and abandoned.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
- In what way is worldly thinking dualistic? In what way is a correct view of reality triadic?
- How does 1 Corinthians chapter 2 show noncommutation?
- What is the difference between contextual and analog intelligence?
- How does Peter in the first two verses of 1 Peter show:
- The less than ideal earthly circumstances of the believers he writes to?
- The ways that God would have them view those circumstances?
- The most accurate source of information about those circumstances?
About The Author
