New Thoughts: (09/26/13-10/01/13)
It is interesting to see that Peter, in this presumably first letter to the churches in Asia Minor, introduces himself solely as an apostle of Jesus Christ. I also notice he applies to himself only that name which Jesus gave to him. This form of introduction would probably pass without remark were it not for his second letter. There, we find him introducing himself as, “Simon Peter, bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2Pe 1:1). There is nothing from this first introduction which is not found in the second, yet there is much added to the second introduction.
Given what may be deduced as to his reason for writing this letter, it would seem he feels the need to establish his right to write, if you will. In this, he is not so different from Paul, who often seems at pains to make his status clear: I am an apostle every bit as much as those who were with Him. In this instance, though, the roles are somewhat reversed. The churches to which Peter writes are likely to have some history with Paul, at least in many cases. What they are unlikely to have is any history with Peter. So, then, he is to the point. I am Peter. I am an Apostle. There: right has been established. You have enough in that simple statement to know my story sufficiently to recognize that you ought to give credence to my words.
That he softens this somewhat in the second letter is more likely to be evidence of this previous introduction than of some maturing humility in Peter. That humility has already grown, but it has not so changed Peter that he cannot be as forthright and direct as ever. This is the same Peter who would bluster before Jesus in his enthusiasm and devotion. It is the same Peter who felt the burning of his terrible failure, and also the balm of forgiveness from the very One he had betrayed. Oh! He knew his limitations and weaknesses only too well. But, he also knew he had been given an assignment by this same Jesus, and he was not going to fail again! Lessons had been learned, and if any man knew of this Christian form of leadership that made of every leader a servant, it was Peter. That knowledge is here, even if the introduction does not give immediate evidence of the fact.
Having just concluded my own long study of the Gospels, I was pleased to read a particular point made in McClintock & Strong regarding Peter. It is something I had noticed, and commented on at length, yet they bring to it a nuance I had, I think, missed. This concerns the process of Peter’s post-Resurrection forgiveness. For the bulk of my Christian life, I have always understood that it was that lakeside scene. Peter had denied Jesus three times, and now, in John 21, Jesus asks Peter three times whether he loves Him, commands him three times to shepherd the flock of Christ. But, there is that other notice, made in passing, that Luke records as the two disciples return from Emmaus. Delivering their news to the Eleven, they receive the reply, “The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon” (Lk 24:34).
Forgiveness was a private matter. Jesus, in applying mercy to this matter, follows the order of church discipline He Himself established. First, go to your brother in private. He has done this. He has seen Peter mortified at his own failure, longing for restoration, determined to change what needs changing. And, He has pronounced forgiveness. Peter knew himself forgiven by the time these two disciples arrived in Jerusalem. I commented at the time, that his eagerness to be ashore with Jesus was no act of a man still unsure where he stood. If he had not already been forgiven and certain of that fact, one can hardly imagine him rushing to get to so difficult, so awkward a reunion.
No, this was a reunion of friends! This was another chance to be with a cherished Companion. So, then, what was that business with their exchange after breakfast? McClintock & Strong provides the meaning. This is Peter’s public reinstatement. The point is noted that between His Resurrection and this point in time, Jesus falls back to addressing Peter only as Simon. Peter was the name given him by Jesus. I think we must place particular significance on that, as we do with those other occasions where God has given name to a man. Abraam becomes Abraham. Jacob becomes Israel. Why?
Well, there is certainly significance to the name that is given, but there is even more significance to be found in the act of naming. That same significance applied when Zacharias was told what to name his son, when Joseph was informed that Mary’s son was to be named Yeshua. There is a tradition, which can be found all the way back to Adam’s first assignment in Eden, that the one given right of naming is also given authority over the named. Adam was to have dominion over all the creatures of the earth, and this is established in his giving them name. God, in renaming Abraam and Jacob, established Himself as their ruling authority. They are His. So, too, with John and Jesus, even before birth! You fathers, understand this: Your children are not your own, they are Mine.
I must repeat that for my own ears. I have no child of miraculous conception, but in a much lesser degree, I could say that every child is a child of miraculous conception. The very fact of birth is a miracle after its fashion. When one considers the myriad ways that a pregnancy can go wrong, or that it can even fail to begin; when one considers the wisdom of the ancients, who were far more clear on the fact that their fruitfulness or lack thereof was God’s doing, regardless of human agency: We must come to realize that we are all addressed with that statement. Your children are not your own, they are Mine.
This same understanding was drilled into the Apostles, Paul included. This church: It’s not your church, it’s Mine. They are not your converts, they are Mine. You are My shepherds, but they are My sheep. Children or church members, the same truth applies. We have responsibilities, because God has set these under our charge for a season. But, He has not given them to us. He has assigned us to them. There is a reason why Christian leadership done right always reflects the servant’s role.
Carry that lesson into Peter’s introduction of himself. He surely did. He recognized that these churches had much to do with Paul’s efforts, and he was by no means looking to horn in on those efforts. Peter and Paul are not adversaries. They are not in a competition. They have long since arrived at an understanding of their distinct roles. Paul, you are clearly assigned primarily to the Gentiles. God has spoken! And, Peter, you are just as clearly sent primarily to the Jews. Again, God has spoken! Yet, nothing in this assignment ever demanded that Paul steer clear of the Jewish populations in his efforts. No way! They were the first place he went, wherever he went. And, it wasn’t in the thought that they would be the most receptive. No, it was simply that they had the birthright, the right of first refusal, if you will. Likewise, Peter was not restricted from speaking to the Gentiles.
What has been suggested was that this division of labor was primarily an agreement between the two for such times as they found themselves ministering in the same place at the same time. I don’t think this was a matter of conflict avoidance. It was a matter of maximizing the opportunity. We two can reach far more with the Gospel if we coordinate, so let’s take this approach. No more need be read into that.
The other point that is made in regard to Peter’s relationship to Paul is that these two men, both servants to the same Lord and Savior, both under-shepherds by Christ’s charge, were at opposite ends of the world at this time. Paul was likely in Rome, Peter is in Babylon. Paul knows there are issues that need to be addressed amongst the churches of Asia Minor. We have his own letters attesting to this. But, he also knows Peter is nearer. Further, he knows John Mark is going that way, and Silvanus as well. Silvanus, in particular, may have been touring that region en route, so has more immediate news of their circumstance when he reaches Peter. This, then, is a coordinated effort. Paul may very well have sent word to Peter, requesting his help for these churches. Silvanus may well have aided Peter in shaping his ideas for presentation to this group, and perhaps provided a certain Pauline influence to make Peter’s reception smoother.
What we see is Peter in action. What we see is Peter recognizing the needs of mission at this point in time, and addressing those needs. There will be time for followup. This is sufficient, I think, to address the difference of address between the two letters. Add to this that by the time of the second letter, it is quite probable that Paul has already died, and Peter is feeling the shepherd’s burden over these churches more fully.
That being the case, we can look upon this first letter as an evidence of God’s Providence, which is beautiful in its own right. That God Who had carefully worked to establish a bond between John and Peter, knowing that John’s brother James, with whom he had so close a bond, would soon be taken from him, also ensures there is an existing connection between Peter and these churches before the more familiar Apostle Paul is taken from them. God’s care for His church is amazing. This is but an early evidence of that care. As one looks into the history of the Church down through the ages, the evidence only mounts. Yes, there are dark times. Yes, fallen men seem to labor no end at its corruption, but God prevails! The barbarians may overrun empires, but the Church persists. The barbarians may even make their way into the ranks of the clergy, but there remains a remnant. A seedling Church sprouts somewhere else. New populations receive the light even as the sight of the older populations seems to have grown dim. I could wonder what stage we are in here in America. Have we grown so poor of sight, so dead to the life of Christ that He is moving on to more productive fields?
Here again I find the lessons of history instructive. Israel’s history is replete with examples of excessive faith in location and insufficient faith in God. Moses, at God’s instruction, produces a staff with a snake figure atop it. The people are to look upon it and be healed. But, it was a one-shot deal. The people, however, in their amazement at God’s healing, turned it into an idol, and made so much of the thing that it had to be destroyed for their own good. And yet, that same image persists as the emblem of modern medicine. Isn’t that something? And how many have made an idol of health, or of those sciences that allow us to counter so many ills? No, the medical profession is no evil in itself, by no means! But, when we reach the viewpoint that what is medically possible must therefore be ethical? When we have medicos ‘playing God’ with fertility, with end-of-life care, and so on: What have we made of that which God made good?
Returning to Israel’s history, we have Shiloh, which was an early place of worship, but the people reached the perspective that the place itself was holy, rather than the God they met there. Shiloh was destroyed. God moved to Jerusalem, filling the temple Solomon had built there. And, again the people became convinced that they could do as they please. God would never destroy His own abode, surely! The Temple is here, and no harm can ever befall us. Until it did. And, they were right back at the same place when their Messiah came and walked amongst them. Oh! But, that latter fall of Jerusalem was a gruesome spectacle. And it wasn’t the Romans who made it so horrible, but those within the walls.
Move forward in history. The Roman Empire has adopted Christianity as its state religion. On what basis? Well, in large part, it is because Constantine saw that God’s emblem on his banners had brought victory in battle. Surely, then, if we proclaim this God as Rome’s God, then Rome will stand forever! Except it didn’t. The people grew in wickedness, and God would no longer suffer His good name to be sullied by their profligate sins. Britain? Britain saw itself as the New Jerusalem. Surely, God shown upon their empire just as constantly as the Sun itself. And, to be sure, they did much to spread the Gospel. But, they came to the point of presuming on their status. We are God’s chosen. What can befall us but endless good? Why should we not pursue whatever we wish? Sure, we serve the idols of profit and empire, but God’s with us, so what harm could it do? Ah, but where is that empire today? It is a horribly shrunken thing.
Then we arrive in America. America the Beautiful! America, that land set as a city on a hill. For many years we celebrated our roots, we proudly hailed our Pilgrim and Puritan forebears, and the grand vision they had for establishing a land where men of faith could pursue their faith unfettered by government restrictions. We built schools, and to what purpose? That men might learn God’s ways more fully, and be the better equipped to bear His Gospel to the lost. Today? We are the lost. And, yet we remain convinced that the idol that we have made of the USA must stand. Our roots! They’re so God-ordained! What difference can it make that the tree is rotted out and all but fruitless? Surely, God would never let this perish. After all, where else can He turn? We’re the last ones left standing. All the other nations have gone to ruin. And yet, somehow, even though we see the ruin around us, we don’t really believe it. No, our nation, bless its rot, is a fine thing. It’s still the best of all lands. It’s still the engine of missions. Is it? Will God long accept so corrupt a representative? History would suggest otherwise.
Well, there’s a bit of a lengthy divergence. Back to Peter, and there is one more point which must be discussed, much though it seems it should be long settled. There remains this great point of vital disagreement between the Catholic and Protestant church. Just how important was Peter? Of course, we know that the Catholic Church still insists that Peter was not just an Apostle, but the Apostle – Christ’s Vicar on earth. Of course, they must maintain such a view, for the entire papacy requires such an understanding.
From the Protestant perspective, given Scripture and Scripture alone as basis for such determinations, it seems exceedingly clear that no such view of Peter is supportable. Indeed, one need look no further than the opening of this very epistle. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”. He is making no claim of authority here which would set him above Paul, or any other apostle. He is merely establishing his credentials as one of those authorized by Christ.
The Catholic view is also, I believe, built upon a reading of Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession. Peter having proclaimed Jesus as the Christ and more, the Son of God, Jesus responds first by blessing this “Simon son of Jonah”, not because of his brilliant insight, not for finally catching on, but because “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven” (Mt 16:17). Notice that! Peter, you’re no big deal in yourself. The blessing isn’t coming because you said that. The blessing is that God moved upon you such that you did say that. You aren’t speaking from your own knowledge. You’re speaking from God’s revelation. How blessed the man who is granted such privilege by God’s choosing!
But, He continues. He declares the name change. “You are Peter.” You are a rock. “And upon this rock I will build My church.” And, here is where we run into trouble. The Catholics are certain that the rock named Peter is the same rock Jesus intends to build upon. But, is God really going to build such a church as will assault the very gates of hell with impunity upon something so weak as a man? No! It is upon the revealed Word of God, upon that revelation knowledge encapsulated in Scripture. It is upon this God ordained, God breathed expression of the very Truth of God. If there is a Rock upon which the Church finds its foundation, if there is a Strength that empowers the Church to prevail against every assault, it is certainly not Peter. It is Christ. “My soul, wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from Him. He only is my Rock and my salvation. […] The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God” (Ps 62:5-7). You are the Son of God, Peter proclaimed. You are my Rock and my Salvation!
Then, much is made of the singular pronouns used as Jesus proclaims that he will give the keys of the kingdom, the power of binding and loosing to ‘you’. See? He is talking to Peter, there is this singular ‘you’. Clearly, Peter got the keys to the kingdom, not James or John or the others. Peter’s in charge. He’s the man, and any future authority in the Church must derive from him. But, there is the alternative of hearing this ‘you’ in a more representative fashion, as a collective pronoun. Peter, in answering Jesus’ original question, has spoken as representing the disciples. We recognize that Peter, by whatever agency, often acts in this fashion. If one must speak on behalf of all, it tends to fall to him. When the time comes to preach that first sermon on Pentecost, Peter takes the task. But, he only expresses what all of them are saying, what all of them are doing.
So, then, McClintock & Strong reaches the conclusion, “Peter held no distinct office, and certainly never claimed any powers which did not belong equally to all his fellow apostles.” He may have been first among equals, particularly during their training period. He may have taken up the task, particularly, of shepherding his fellow shepherds. But, it seems clear from his own writing, his own demeanor, that he saw it in exactly that light. They were fellow shepherds. Jesus had made it abundantly clear that no one of them was better than the others. As with his confession, so with their efforts for the kingdom. “Flesh and blood did not do this, but your Father in heaven.” Don’t ever let ego destroy what Christ is doing! And this is the great danger, I think, in the elevated view of Peter that the Catholic church has insisted on. They have created a Petrine idol, and made of a very good man, a tool for evil. That is not to say the Catholic church is incapable of doing good, has not had some very good influences upon the world. By no means! But, it has also perpetrated horrors ‘in the name of God’. It has also elevated men, one after another, far above their stations. And it has become, in many ways, too enamored of the trappings to be holy. Men have observed this from within and without for centuries. The monastic movements came in response to this very thing. The Protestant movement came in response to this very thing.
We, no doubt, have idols of our own. We must be vigilant in this regard, and frankly, must be knocking at God’s door asking that He would point them out to us, for our blindness towards self is proverbial. We hear from respected authors just how great a problem this is, and we nod our heads knowingly. Oh, yes. He’s quite right, quite right. Yet, somehow, we never seem to get around to cleaning the idols out of our own lives. I could present examples from my own present day experience. I could list some things that I know I have granted too much prominence in my life. Some, I have thought defeated, but have reasserted themselves. Others, I may carp about, but they remain apparently more attractive to me than not. There are doubtless others still of which I remain unaware. But, God is faithful, and He shall not suffer these things to stand between us. I only pray I shall come to that very place of obedience Peter is setting before me in this letter.
Along the lines of this thought, I find it interesting that, as Thayer points out, John never once uses the term apostle. It is not just that he doesn’t use this term to identify himself in his letters. He doesn’t use it at all. Given that all three of the Synoptic Gospels make mention of this, Luke, in particular pointing out that Jesus Himself gave them this title (Lk 6:13), it seems odd that John would avoid the term. As to his letters, perhaps it is simply that unlike Peter and Paul he had no particular need to assert his authority with those to whom he wrote. However, there is that oddity of style in his gospel, his refusal to name himself, and yet his willingness to be identified as that disciple whom Jesus loved.
What is to be made of this? Was it no more than the need to express the love he felt? Was it just the delight of knowing himself loved by Christ? Or was there still some of that old competitiveness going on here? We cannot know with certainty. It is possible, though, that John recognized a certain issue of pride in himself, knew what this title of Apostle might do to his ego. It is possible that he rejected use of the title for the simple purpose of taming his own flesh. This need not cause us to suppose that others, in using the title, neglected their own issues of pride. Not at all! I think it is sufficiently clear that neither Peter nor Paul identify their apostolic office as a matter of prideful boasting, but only as a means of establishing their authority to speak, and more critically yet, the source of that authority as being in Jesus Christ.
John had no need to establish his own authority. He was sufficiently well known. He was also, by our understanding, the last of the apostles remaining alive. Whether this was already the case throughout his writing is less clear. But, if he is writing primarily to those churches he had been serving for years, he would have no cause to thus defend himself. Besides, he was far more concerned with defending against those who came with false claims of authoritative knowledge. His own authority and knowledge were already established and needed no defense.
Peter, particularly in this first letter to churches outside his normal sphere of activity, needed to establish his position, to give his readers a reason to hear his instruction as instruction. Paul, we well understand, had to constantly be establishing his authority. This would come up because of his history as a persecutor of the Church. This would come up because he had not been there to receive his commission when the others were named by Christ. But, his appointment and his message were no less the product of direct training by Jesus. We can surmise that for him, that came during his years away following his conversion in Damascus. Then, of course, there were dynamics within the churches to which he wrote that required he reassert his authority, and simultaneously set the proper bounds on that authority. I am nothing, Peter is nothing, Apollos is nothing. It is Christ or it is vanity and wind.
Here, too, we may need a reminder for ourselves. Perhaps we have a bit too much pride in our particular congregation. If not our congregation, perhaps we are confident that our denomination has it more together than most. You know, compare us to that church down the street! Clearly, we are far more on target and on message. We happy few Evangelicals, true Evangelicals: we have to stick together, and defend the faith against the barbarians in those other churches! But, that is not the mission, is it? Perhaps, if we thought more along the lines of, ‘the few, the proud, the Evangelicals’, or ‘the few, the proud, the Charismatics’, or whatever denomination applies in your case, we would recognize a central problem with this mindset. For, it is not the denomination that has highest place in our thinking, if we will assess it honestly. No. It is that we are proud, and we are particularly proud because we see ourselves a minority. We are few! We are select! We’re the cream of the crop, and God has never had anybody quite like us before. That may or may not be true, but if it is true, it is probably not true in the way we think.
Perhaps we, like John, need to think less of ourselves and our specific set of foibles. Perhaps we need to hear Paul once more telling us that it’s not about our labels. It’s about Christ. If that church down the street is following Jesus the Christ of God’s own choosing, who are we to dictate that their rites must match our own, that their sensibilities must be as ours? Yes, there are strict boundaries, doctrinal boundaries, that must apply. No, we do not wish to open ourselves to a sloppy sort of religion that rejects all definitions. But, at the same time, we must be careful of our old enemy pride, and we must be careful that we are not setting up fences to divide what God has set together.
I can’t say as I expected to travel down that line of thought, but there it is, and I’ll let it stand. But, it is past time that I move on from author to audience. Peter addresses himself to the scattered resident aliens of Asia Minor. In doing so, he as that particularly freighted word Diaspora in his greeting. This has led some to suppose he is addressing primarily Jewish congregations in the region. That’s not an unreasonable surmise, certainly. He is apostle to the Jews, and the records show that there were indeed Jewish populations in that area. Paul’s own travels put him in contact with them repeatedly, much to their mutual discomfort.
But, there is far more in this letter that would lead one to read Peter as addressing a larger audience, and perhaps even one not primarily Jewish at all. Certainly, the record of Acts would suggest that churches in this area were primarily Gentile in makeup. Paul was not well received by the Jewish community, try as he might to bring them news of their Messiah. Peter sends this letter by the hand of Silvanus, a man familiar to the churches of that region, and perhaps by John Mark, who is apparently present. He writes of their former ways, describing them in a fashion that could hardly be thought of as describing those of Jewish descent. Yes, the references to issues with lust might apply, but references to them as previously ‘not My people’? No, that would be clearly read as a pointer to the Gentiles.
But, the word diaspora remains, coupled with the idea of parapideemois. In this latter term, Peter describes his readers as resident aliens. They live alongside the natives. They live, not in monastic seclusion, not as a gated community, but as foreigners in the midst. They rub elbows with the locals. They are, after all, locals themselves. But, they have become resident aliens. They are citizens, now, of another realm, a higher realm, a realm not of this earth, or not entirely so. And these, Peter says, are diaspora, scattered, throughout the region.
In its application to the Hebrews, that term speaks particularly to the period in which Israel was ejected from the Promised Land. This came at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians, if we are following the geo-political tides that brought about their exile. But, it is very clearly by God’s hand that these events were not merely permitted, but instigated and orchestrated. God had spoken, repeatedly, of the crimes which must bring His punishment, but His own people ignored Him. In the Diaspora, they could no longer ignore Him. His word was their reality, and it was not one to be desired.
But, now, Peter is applying the term as a thing redeemed. It is not that you have been chased out of the land of promise. It cannot be this, for he is addressing those who were never in the land of promise. Rather, perhaps mindful of all those parables Jesus taught that spoke of planting and harvesting, he uses the term to point out how they have been sown. Recall that the normal method for sowing seed in that period was to scatter cast. Just throw it everywhere, knowing at least some of it will take, and that will be enough. The labor required to sow more selectively just wasn’t worth the effort. Peter sees the Church, these enclaves of the kingdom, embassies of the kingdom, being set up throughout these Gentile lands, and he rejoices. Look how the kingdom is being sown everywhere! Yes, you are aliens in the land, and this will require great encouragement, great diligence, if you are to persist in being true ambassadors. But, look at all these embassies springing up! Think of what must happen.
I have to think that parable of the soils could not be far from his thoughts as he writes this greeting. It is, perhaps, a bittersweet thing, seeing all these seeds sown, hearing Silvanus’ report as to their difficulties, and maybe wondering how many of those seeds have fallen in good soil, and how many amidst thorns. But, this is very much his message: You are ambassadors all! You are citizens of the kingdom of God who have been sent out to live in the midst of this territory. You are residents, but you are aliens. This is a particularly difficult assignment because you have effectively renounced your former citizenship, have broken with your neighbors, and yet you remain there. You are in their face, an unavoidable reminder that things can be different, things can be better. You are an insistent sign post. You point out their own darkness, their own need to repent, and they don’t wish to repent. Therefore, they cannot help but resent your presence. Be not dismayed! You are here for God’s purpose, and the light will overcome the darkness – where He has purposed that this be so.
We are called to serve as ambassadors to these darkened places. We are called to live in the very midst of them, yet remain true citizens of the kingdom of God. This is a daunting task, and we all have need of such letters as Peter has written to remind us both of the mission and the means. We all have need of the fellowship of the church to help us maintain in the midst. And, as one surveys the list of provinces to which Peter writes, we see the impact of the mission, when the mission is pursued.
To get the sense of this, we must look at those provinces not as they were when Peter wrote, nor as they are today. Rather look at them in the earlier centuries of church history. We have before us Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Of these, only Galatia registers with us, and that comes solely of Paul’s letter having been sent to the churches of that region. We probably recognize these as being in what is now Turkey, but beyond that, they don’t mean much to us. Well, let’s consider them briefly. Pontus would provide the church with Aquila and Priscilla, who were of such assisitance to Paul. Cappodocia, for all its scant population, produced several early church fathers: Gregory the Illuminator, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil. Asia, here representing that province which occupied the western-most parts of Asia Minor, was home to all of those churches addressed in the Revelation.
Galatia, while having no anecdote so directly accessible, intrigues me for the fact of being of Celtic origins. Isn’t that something? They are not expressly Gaelic, yet they have a connection with those who populated Ireland, and Ireland would in time become a critical actor in the preservation of God’s Word.
Meanwhile, by the second century, Pliny had been made governor of Bithynia, and found the influence of Christianity so widespread that he felt the need to send word to Emperor Trajan. The pagan temples, he explained were largely deserted. But, for all that persecution of these Christians was being promoted, Pliny’s advice was to the contrary. Their moral character, he noted, made them marvelous citizens. They ought not to be purged, but promoted. Note also that several of the critical early church councils took place in this region.
So, then, whatever the present state may be in that region, the effect of those seeds sown throughout were great. The churches had not been planted to no purpose. Paul had not labored in vain. Peter did not waste his time in writing for their encouragement. If I might bear this forward to our own time, we, too, may wonder at the value of our efforts. In this post-modern, post-Christian setting, it seems like the church labors in vain to make itself heard. It seems the tide of unbelief is too great. It seems that the church of the True believers is shrinking, withering away, assaulted from without and within. Well, yes, it is being assaulted from without and within! But, it is the voice of those attacking forces which seeks to convince us that resistance is futile.
We are a church under siege, and it is a classic tool of the sieging forces to seek to demoralize those suffering within the walls. But, it is a classic tool of the besieged to sally forth from the gates, to strike at the enemy from the safety of strong towers. And, we are besieged within that strong tower which is God Himself. He is simultaneously our Provider. It is, then, a fool’s task to besiege the city of God. If we are mocked, if we are beset by liars who seek to pervert the perfect Truth of God, if we are weighted down with marginal believers, unbelievers and outright heathens who yet determine to bear the name of Christian, we are, quite frankly, in no different position than the Church has ever been in. We are dealing with the same things that were being dealt with when Peter, Paul and John had yet to pass from the scene. We are facing no greater trials than all who have been this way before. We will do better, then, to contemplate their victories, than to listen to those who oppose the God of Creation.
With that, it is time I move to verse 2, and hear the marvelous truth Peter has encapsulated therein. The first thing that strikes me is the particularly Trinitarian arrangement of the message. Father, Spirit and Son are all involved, are all God. It is a particularly useful passage for recognizing the specific offices or roles of the three persons of God. This matter of election unto grace, it comes according to the Father, by the Spirit, for the Son. Notice that while we have infinite benefit from this activity, the activity itself is all God: From, by and for, He is the object.
I would like, to briefly explore the distinctions of these three little words. Our status as the elect, those chosen by God, comes ‘according to’ the foreknowledge of God. That phrasing is stilted enough that it may not bear as much meaning as it ought. We understand that accord indicates agreement. But this is something more. It is on account of this foreknowledge, by virtue of this foreknowledge. In other words, were it not for the foreknowledge of God, there would be no elect.
But, we must consider the nature of that foreknowledge as well. Here, we have the Greek term, prognoosin, which is instantly recognizable as the basis for our own prognosis. ‘Knowledge beforehand’ would be a fairly literal presentation of the term. We ask the doctor about the prognosis, and we are asking effectively what he knows will develop given the facts now at his disposal. What can you tell me of what lies ahead? Of course, such prior knowledge as we find in God is of a different quality. There is no least shadow of doubt in Him. When He knows, He knows perfectly. We should hear it with that same power Paul applies in Romans 8:29-30 – Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. Whom He predestined, He called. Whom He called, He justified. Whom He justified, He glorified. He did it. He determined it and He made it so.
No other can prognosticate with such authority. For God to foreknow is for God to have prearranged. He has determined it, ordained it. Thus, when we speak of our election as being according to His foreknowledge, we are acknowledging that our election owes entirely to His foreknowledge, would not, could not come into being apart from His prior declaration that it would be.
Peter adds to this the means. If God has foreknown and foreordained this condition of election, how does He do it? It is done by the Holy Spirit, through the agency of the Holy Spirit. But, notice what His agency is: the sanctifying work – purification. When we speak of the fruits of the Spirit, these are the outworking of purification. Our election comes through sanctification, and our sanctification comes by means of the Holy Spirit, or it never comes at all. This is an end to works righteousness. Works righteousness cannot be obtained because it leaves the Holy Spirit out. There is no ‘through God’ in that process. There is the attempt to be God, to prove we have no need of God, and this can only lead us to the exact opposite of purification. It is the utmost defilement of sin.
But, this sanctification is not the endpoint. It is not the goal. It is the means. Sanctification comes to us for a purpose, and that purpose is to be found in Christ. It is only as the Holy Spirit sanctifies that we are positioned to be sprinkled with the blood of Christ, to benefit from His atoning sacrifice. But, even this, were it the sum of our experience, would be missing the better part. All of this, the choosing, the cleansing, the atoning, puts us in a position where we can finally hope to obey Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. This is to say that we are finally in a position to obey God. And how have we arrived? We have arrived by His will, through His aid, for His salvation, and in our obedience, to His glory. It is God start to finish. It is God through and through.
There is a particular flavor to this obedience that is purposed for us. Peter deploys a term here that, according to the lexical authorities, was unknown to classical Greek. It is not abject slavery. It is willing subjection. It is subservience by choice. This is the aim of it all! This is the aim of our election, that we might willingly, gladly choose, to be bondservants of God, making ourselves subject to His will, moveable by His decree, directed by His hand.
If we look at the Greek and Roman cultures, we can see how this would be a foreign concept. Slaves were hardly slaves by choice. They were the captives from battle. They were, perhaps, those who had become so buried in debts that their only choice for survival was to sell themselves. They were not, by and large, there because they wanted to be. They were there because they had no choice in the matter, or at least felt this to be the case.
Not so the Christian! No! Somehow, in the mystery of God’s Power, He has so moved that our election is sure and yet our election is a matter of choice. Since at least the Reformation, the debate has raged. Is God sovereign, or do we have free will? The answer is that both of these things are true. I dearly love what a brother of mine offered as a way of comprehending this reality. “Yes, you have free will. But, God’s is freer.” Yet, even this falls short in the end. It is not that God trumps our will, for then we are removed from the opportunity for willing submission. No, it is more the case that God does not refuse us His benefits. He does not leave us in the prison of our spiritual blindness, but rather sends along His own Holy Spirit to snap us out of it.
It is true that, God having elected us, there is no chance that we will fail to choose Him. It is also true that we choose, and we choose of our own volition. It may be said, as I think Martin Luther would have it, that this moment of election marks the first time we have ever been able to choose of our own volition. Right up to that point, we were truly enslaved, enslaved to sin and utterly blind as to our servile condition. Like those who were so offended by Jesus, we are inclined to proudly boast, “We have never been enslaved”, when in truth, we have never known anything else. Then comes that moment of holy clarity, the very Spirit of God arriving to make arrangements for our sanctification – to start the work, continue the work, and see to it that the work is finished – and we suddenly see our surroundings. Along with that, we see the Holy Lamb of God, calling us out of this mess, beckoning us into His fellowship. Somehow, by another miraculous move of God, we are not so utterly despondent for our condition that we fail to respond. Somehow, we are able to move past the “Woe is me! I am undone!” and take hold of the Holy Hand that is stretched toward us.
But, if this is where we stop, we are children of stunted growth. This becomes the point of much of the rest of this letter. You have been called, you are sanctified by the Holy Spirit’s efforts, you are sprinkled by the blood of Jesus. All this being true, there is every reason to expect obedience to Jesus Christ. Obedience is something we might see as akin to Paul’s “work out your salvation”(Php 2:12), an activity undertaken “with fear and trembling”, but also in the clear recognition that it is God working in us that renders us both willing and able. There is that mystery again. It is all Him, yet we are not allowed to be passive lumps of clay.
When we slip too far into that sense of God must do the work, else no work will be done, we wander into fatalism, which is something entirely different than faith. When we veer back into thinking that everything depends on us doing the work, we have again departed the Way, this time to return to a works-righteousness of no more value than that of the Pharisees. The working out of our salvation with fear and trembling is not a matter of us taking charge. It’s not fear lest we fail and thereby lose our ticket into heaven. It’s the trembling of reverence. It’s an action undertaken with utmost humility and gratitude. After all, it is God working God’s work. We are granted the pleasure of taking part in His work, of being part of His work. We are blessed to be empowered by the Holy Spirit dwelling within, that we may truly desire this labor of love, and that’s exactly what it is.
It is a labor of love. This may be said of God’s hand in the matter. It is His great love for us that causes Him to be bothered to save us, to launch us into this life of sanctification. It is His great love for us that has resulted in our loving Him. It is that resonating love of God which impels us to act upon desire. That desire, which was once distorted by sin and directed towards all manner of worldly pleasures has finally found its proper object, that which we were made to love, designed to love. How the heart rejoices in those first moments of recognition! Here is what I’ve been longing for, even when I did not recognize the longing. Here is the One I was intended to love, and He loves me! How can I make my own love for Him clear? What can I be doing that will broadcast my love to one and all, for I want the world to know I am in love with this God Who has rescued me. I want the whole world to be as happy and filled with love as I am.
This is that motive power which fills us when we are new converts to Christ. It ought to be the motive power that fills us still. When the Holy Spirit warns the Church that she has lost her first love (Rev 2:4), it is this attitude that is in view. As Peter proceeds to instruct us, remind us, of the need for perseverance, of the ongoing work of sanctification, and how this ought to be central to our thinking, it is this attitude that is in view. It is that very motive power of love which pushes us to work out our sanctification, leaning wholly on our Beloved as we do. It is that power of love working out in our lives which, it must be said, leads to the sorts of persecutions Peter is addressing. But, it is that very same power of love which empowers us not only to obey in pursuit of holiness, but to persevere in the face of trials.
Consider again that instruction from Paul, that we should work out our sanctification, knowing that the work is really evidence that God is working in us. He later writes to the church in Thessalonica, “Your sanctification is the will of God; so abstain from sexual immorality” (1Th 4:3). It is God’s will. I will assume for the moment that Paul is using the lesser term here, indicating God’s desire rather than His decree. In view of this mystery of working out what God is determined to do anyway, I’m not sure there’s all that much distinction to be had. God has proclaimed us elect. There can be no other final state than sanctification. God has it in mind as His desired will that we have an active hand in the process. Let not grace become an excuse for sin!
This is yet another danger if we lean too hard on the fact of God’s decree. We fall right back into the same trap that the Pharisees found themselves in, and those before. But, God is here. He has said it, therefore we can surely do as we please now. His Word cannot fail, therefore we need pay little to no attention to His Word. Don’t think we’re immune to this, who have the Scriptures before us! We are very much made of the same stuff as were they. We have the same proclivities, the same weaknesses, the same pride. We run the same risk of supposing ourselves called only to learn too late that we are not of the elect after all. No, the elect cannot fail of election. But, the reprobate may be fooled into counting himself among the elect and thereby, were it possible, miss his calling.
This working on sanctification, then, earns us nothing. In the grand scheme of things, it accomplishes nothing. For, it is God’s work or it is no work at all. But, it is not without purpose that we are called to labor, as it were, in vain. It is not in vain. Consider the encouragement given in the book of Hebrews. “Let us draw near, sincere of heart and in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean of evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22). We cannot have full assurance of faith if we have become lazy and complacent towards our sins. We cannot suppose our hearts sincere if we care not how our actions offend God. We need our hearts sprinkled clean of evil conscience, not conscience of evil. No! We must be wise to evil that we may avoid it. We must be diligent to steer clear of those sins which so easily entangle. In doing so, we must not be driven by fear, lest we slip. For, we will slip. Yet, we continue in laboring after purity. Why? Because each success gives evidence to ourselves that we are good and truly His.
God does not need evidence. He knows. He also knows that we need evidence. Therefore, though it is a work He is doing, yet He insists that we be a part of His work. It is for our good as well as His glory. True, He could hardly be glorified by a family that bears no resemblance to Him, nor loves or respects Him. But, He is glorified in rescuing His family members from the mire, from setting us back on paths of righteousness. He is surely glorified when His children make progress. He is most assuredly glorified when His children shine out in the very midst of those others who, like they were, are yet stuck in that mire of sin. He calls us to be salt and light. We cannot do that but by way of sanctification. We cannot demonstrate the value of this precious gift of Life but by persevering against every temptation, every trial; proving this gift of grace in us as pure gold.
Now, there is another aspect of this which deserves attention. Sanctification is a necessary vehicle for obedience. Without that work of God’s Holy Spirit within us, obedience is an impossibility. But, what is that obedience to pursue? It is to pursue sanctification. If sanctification is the vehicle for obedience, we might also say that obedience is the fuel for sanctification. The two must be joined together in us, and it is to this end that Peter writes. Sanctification: The ongoing, life-long process of the Christian. Obedience: The very meaning of being a Christian – one who, like these first disciples, has committed himself to follow Jesus, and been called to this life of the bond-servant, of willing submission to the leadership of our Lord and King, our Savior, Jesus the chosen Christ of God.
As I think upon this whole aspect of the Triune God working in me, upon me, with me, and through me, how could I possibly stop short of praise? Consider this work He is doing! By His own predetermined action, I have been chosen and empowered to accept the grace He has offered. I am His, and in Him, through Him and by Him, I am being made daily more able to live for Him. Who am I that I should be granted so great a thing? I am nothing! I am less than nothing, a most unworthy vessel for such honor. And yet, there it is. Chosen and empowered. That is my story. When I am feeling weak, when the way ahead seems impassible and impossible; still that is the Truth of my condition. He has chosen me. He has empowered me. He is working in me. Therefore, it is not impossible. Therefore, I can have strength even in my weakness. Therefore, I can resist the temptations that beset me. It is no longer a question of ability, but rather a question of will. And look! He is in me to will! Even there, I have every cause for confidence, however often I have failed in the past, however often I may yet fail in the future. He is working, and He is calling me to be working, not in futility, not in busy work, but as partner to His own work within me.
Oh, indeed, may grace and peace be mine in fullest measure, Peter! Yes, and may they be yours as well. I tell you who may be reading this, there is only one way that this desire can be fulfilled, and that is through the foreknown election of God, that is by means of the Holy Spirit, sent out at His determination to so work upon you that you can hear the call, that you are sanctified, and that you are desirous of being sanctified all the more. Yet, it is not blind fate. It is not immutable destiny. It is not too late for you to hear, to respond, to know this fullest possible measure of grace and peace for your own life. There is hope in God. There is Life in God. There is certainty, solidity, unchanging grace in God. He is our Rock, our Strong Tower. Today, if He calls you, may you hear His voice and be swift to answer Him! Here I am, Lord, save me. Here I am, Lord, send me.
Speak, for Your servant listens. Command, and grant that I be instant in obedience. Direct, and I shall go. Oh, God! Work in me that I may do the work of my Father in heaven. Teach me, sweet Spirit, to be a true bond-servant of Christ. And thank You, Son of God, Son of Man, for that gift of Life You purchased for me by Your blood. May I come to be worth that price by Your will.
