New Thoughts: (11/07/13-11/12/13)
Purification: A requirement for divine service, and the central, almost singular point of this letter. It is required. It is given. It is done by God. It must be done by us. It is a finished work. It is a work in progress. It is. It is not yet. It is, after its fashion, the central agony of this life of faith which we live. As such, it is a thing easily twisted into a weapon against our hope and faith. Thus, it is that the Apostles take so much time not only urging this necessary purification, but also reminding us over and over and over again that salvation does not hinge upon our purification, but rather our purification becomes a possibility – a certainty – because of our salvation. It is, then, all about God. It is all His doing. And yet, because He has done, the love which is in us cannot but labor after doing our part in this process.
I note that there are some textual difficulties in this section of the letter, matters on which the manuscripts are not entirely agreed and therefore the many translations we have are not entirely agreed. This opening verse, with its discussion of purification and obedience is one such point of variation. I say variation as opposed to contention, for there is nothing particularly contentious about the portion in question. All are agreed that Peter writes of having purified our souls, and the need for obedience. So, then: What are the issues?
Well, first there is this question of whether our purification has been in obedience or by obedience. The preposition in question is en. There is no debate on that point in the manuscripts. There does seem to be some question as to its proper interpretation. Strong notes the fundamental sense of the word as indicating a fixed position, a state of being at rest, whether in time, place, or condition. He notes its being the state which sits between eis, with its direction being towards or into a place or purpose, and ek, which points more to the origin from whence things are moving, and thus indicates motion from or out of. Of course, any of these prepositions can take on a wide array of meaning. Both en and ek, for example, may have this sense of by.
However, I would suggest there is a distinction of connotation. We may use the term by, for example, to indicate proximity – the mugs are in that cupboard by the stove. We may use it to indicate a terminal date – I need your status by Friday. We may use it to point out the means – I commute to work by train. So, then, even if we have a translation that tells us, as Darby, that Peter is talking of purifying our souls by obedience to the truth, we must still ask: What does this mean? It certainly seems to indicate ‘by means of’, which more properly seems to belong to eis.
Let us ask this question: Is it even possibly to purify one’s soul apart from obedience to the truth of God? Alternately, is this obedience the means of purification? If it is, that would seem to push us back towards a form of works righteousness which the Gospel would not admit. True, it would suggest itself to the Jewish mind, these ritual cleansings and rigid adherence (or at least rigidly feigned adherence) to the Law being so much a part of the culture. But, Peter has surely seen the futility of this. Paul states it starkly. “That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident” (Gal 3:11). “By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Ro 3:20). Admittedly, we now have justification in sight, rather than purification. So, perhaps we should draw a line, divide the two? But, if we could purify ourselves by mere obedience, there would be no call for justification. If it were possible to arrive at a state with no need for justification by our own effort, there would be no call for Christ to have come, to have died, to have been restored to life and the throne.
Given this, I cannot arrive at our purification deriving from anything that is our own effort, even though it calls forth our greatest efforts. Rather, it seems to me that the NASB is nearer the point in giving us, “you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls”. The NKJV reverses the clauses, and leaves us with an in that is very nearly a by. “You have purified your souls in obeying the truth.” So, again I ask: Can our obedience purify our souls? If our obedience were truly possible in ourselves, then yes, I suppose I could say the one leads to the other. Yet, like Paul, we are forced to confess that such obedience is beyond us. And this, after so lengthy a diversion, brings us to the actual question about the manuscripts. The NKJV, following the KJV, adds in the clause “through the Spirit”. Many of the other translations leave that out, as being in question. Perhaps some scribe along the way, seeing the very questions we have been exploring, thought it best to remind us that even if purification is by obedience, that obedience can only come about through the Spirit. He is the means, sent for our great benefit, that we might not only become children of God, but behave like children of God.
Well, then! Whether that clause was included in Peter’s writing or not, it seems reasonable to suppose it must necessarily have been in his thinking! Peter had tried for obedience. Even with the Son of God standing next to him, calling him forward, urging him on, he had found it impossible. God says walk on water, well he would try. But, obedience to that command lasted mere moments before doubts led to disobedience. The great confession of Christ’s identity led not so much to obedience as to questioning His Truth, and again it was a matter of moments. No, I don’t think Peter, particularly after his greatest failure, had any great misconceptions about his capacity for obedience.
If I may, I would also point out that Peter is not, at this point, laying down rules for the Christian order. He is stating a fact. You have done this. You have purified your souls. You have obeyed the Truth. And let us accept the matter, whether implied or implicit, that you have done this through the Spirit, for there is no other way. There is yet another clause introduced now, by yet another preposition, this time eis. The object is sincere, unfeigned, genuine love of the brethren. Here, the NKJV opts for in, where the NASB and ESV offer for. The NET takes something of a middle path, and gives us, “in order to show”.
How shall we put this all together, then? How shall we understand Peter’s intended meaning? You have purified your souls through the Spirit, in obedience to the Truth, to the end that your love for your fellow believers is real, not a mask, is fervent and heart-felt, utterly genuine. Indeed, the sentence bears within it both the reason and the goal, and both wind up being the matter of love. Love is the reason. Love is the goal. All of this has come about, he says, in order that your love for one another would be real. Clause 1. So, love one another! Clause 2. Love one another a LOT. Don’t fake it. Don’t put on your happy-Sunday face. Really, fervently love one another. From the heart. In other words, from the central seat of your being. If God is enthroned within you, and you have become His temple, then love must fill that Holy of holies wherein He is enthroned, and that Love must pour out in love for our fellow temples.
Paul, setting down his instructions to Timothy, takes up this same point. It should not surprise us, for there is one Gospel, one Truth. Additionally, Peter is writing to those who are more naturally the seed sown by Paul, so it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that he might write to them in terms they will recognize. But, note this point made to Timothy, as concerns his role as pastor/teacher. “The goal of instruction is real love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith” (1Ti 1:5). Notice what isn’t said. The goal is not a clear and concise knowledge of the fine points of doctrine. Indeed, doctrine doesn’t even enter into this particular bit of instruction. Let me state plainly and loudly that I am not suggesting, as many have, that doctrine doesn’t matter. Doctrine matters greatly! How shall we hope to obey the Truth if we have no definition of it? But, that is not the goal. The goal, the first goal, is love, real love pouring out of a heart that has been purified, which must necessarily keep company with a good conscience. These cannot come about apart from sincere faith. But see how faith and conscience are by way of being supporting structures for the central edifice of love.
Love, that love which is real, which is highest, which contains echoes of the love God has for us, requires a pure heart. And the heart cannot be purified apart from the work of the Spirit in us, which is to say the work of God Himself in us. Forgive me if I seem to labor this point, or travel in circles. But, if I do so, I do so together with Peter, together with the Apostles, together with God Himself. It is so easy for us to go off the rails here, to become so engulfed in trying to whip ourselves into some pure state, to conjure up a love in us that we do not feel, that we fall right back into works, right back into trying to earn our way into God’s love.
It may seem like a good thing, but it isn’t. We cannot earn God’s love. We are incapable. Besides, He already loves us. There’s nothing to earn. There is only gratitude to express. And even that is beyond our poor ability to do right. It must come back to the fact that if it depends on us, we are doomed from the outset. That has been the whole point of redemptive history. We were doomed from the outset, and except God stepped in to save, all would be vanity and wind. But, Lo! He did step in. He did save. “I have loved you with an everlasting love, so I have drawn you with lovingkindness” (Jer 31:3). This is our God! He has loved me, and ever shall. He has said it Himself, and I require no further evidence. See, He has sent His Son, His only Son, to die on my behalf, to pay the penalty of my own sins against Him! There is no greater love than He has already shown me. He loves me, and in His love for me, stirs up an unquenchable love for Him in me. That love for Him which wells up within me cannot but reach out and around to encompass all whom He calls His own. Indeed, that love must expand even farther, to touch upon all those who might, just might, be His as well, though they have not yet come to realize it.
It is love, and nothing else, that can move us to take on the task of the missionary. It is love, and nothing else, that can keep us committed to serving the church that is built up of His children. It is love, and nothing else, that can move us to reach out, to help, to speak the Truth to a world in need. Yes, all of these things could be done from some other motive. But, without that motivating love, they are nothing but noise, profitless, worthless expenditures of energy (1Co 13:1-3). The greatest gifts, the most ostentatious displays if piety, if they be apart from a real, unfeigned love, are but a rotten stench, devoid of worth and worse.
Is it any wonder that we need this purifying work of the Spirit aiding us in our obedience to the Truth of God to even arrive at love? Apart from Him, it is a rare thing indeed for us to love any other beyond ourselves. Oh, we may have our friends – acquaintances more accurately. We feel a certain sense of commitment, perhaps, to family. But, love? Only when our own desires have been sufficiently satisfied. Comes the Holy Spirit, though, and things change. They do. We may find it that change come upon us like a rolling wave of the ocean, or we may find that it comes gradually, almost undiscernibly. Yet, it comes. The Spirit arrives and we are changed. We are able to love beyond ourselves. We are able to truly care about one another. We are able, Lord willing, to look beyond our differences to see our unity.
Indeed, with time, we come even to love those lost souls around us, those amongst whom we once lived our lives. That might seem obvious, but in reality I suspect this is the hardest love to hold. At first, they seem a threat to our fragile faith. These people are the temptations I must flee. They might draw my back away from this God who has called me. As if! But, we’re young in the faith. What do we know? Later, they seem like the sort of thing our call to purity must cause us to avoid. We become a tad Pharisaical about it. It’s like that issue with touching a corpse. If we associate with them, we would become unclean ourselves, surely! This we cannot allow. Yes, we see that Jesus had no such compunction, but then, He was God, wasn’t He? It takes time, and the steady teaching of the Holy Spirit, drawing our attention back to Scripture over and over, reminding us of Truth when our thoughts stray into lies. No, they are not to be avoided. They are to be reached. And, they cannot be reached without love. God so loved us! That’s exactly what John was getting at. We were to Him just like these lost souls are to us. Yet, He loved us. He loved us enough to change us from rebel enemies to devoted children. How can we not love those around us who are but awaiting that change, whether they realize it or not?
So then: Purity and love are made connected items, the connective tissue, if you will, of Christian life. Peter now moves on to the matter of how this has come to be. You have obeyed, you have purified, you have loved, he says, because you have been born again. Here, it may be worth stopping for just a moment to remind ourselves that to be born again is not to become a higher form of Christian. It is to become a Christian in the first place. The two are synonymous. You cannot be a Christian except you be born again, and you cannot be reborn to any other state than that of Christian. How is this? Peter explains. The seed from which you have been reborn is not perishable but imperishable, eternal. It has been implanted by the “living and abiding Word of God” (v23).
Our translators do not tend to capitalize the Word in this case, but I think it right. Jesus, our Christ, He is the Word of God, that which Peter must surely have in mind as he describes this Word as living and abiding, and indeed eternal. For, if the seed is eternal, then surely He Who implants the seed is likewise eternal. It is this seed, the Word instilled, which has brought about our rebirth, which has caused this deep change in us by which we are coming to obey, are coming to be pure, are coming to love one another.
How marvelous is this Word? It abides forever! Unlike earthly life, in which the life of humanity is not so very different from that of the least wildflower, this Word lives on and on, unchanging, undecaying. Peter has struck this theme already, but it comes back now, and it drives us towards this point: “This is the word which was preached to you” (v25)! It interests me that in the course of this brief statement, Peter shifts from the Logos of God to the rhema of the Lord. Certainly, amongst Charismatics, there is much made of the distinction. It is all well and good to be hearing the logos of the Lord, and we recognize that Christ Himself is the Logos, but to hear a rhema word! Ooh! That’s special. That’s a word specifically for today, particularly for my circumstance. That’s the stuff of prophecy and revelation!
Well, now. Sounds great, but is there any foundation for this system of thought? Perhaps. Even the NET finds something prophetic in this point, indicating by the phrase, ‘the prophetic nature and divine origin of what has been said’. I suspect, however, that they are hinging more off the eternal aspect of this as God breathed work than on the term chosen for word.
Considering the lexical definitions, logos has more of the realm of reason to it. It is an expression of intelligent thought, of intelligence itself. It is reasoned discourse. It is such as distinguishes speech from the animal growlings of lalia. It is generally understood that in referring to Jesus as the Logos of God, we are being told that He is the “Divine Expression”. He is the exact image of heaven’s God in human form. He is the perfect presentation of God’s thoughts. Strong actually goes so far as to provide that phrase in its definition of the term: “The Divine Expression”.
Rhema, on the other hand, has primarily the sense of doctrine or command, of instruction. I suppose one could take that idea of instruction and arrive at the ‘prophetic word for today’ sense that has been popularized in the Charismatic church. But, it seems to me that Peter is far more interested in the authoritative nature of the word. The command, the instruction of the Lord abides forever. That immediately sets us upon a course that concerns more than today!
This is the word, the doctrine, which was preached to you. Hear this pointing back to Paul’s message. Think how often he speaks of the Gospel. The Gospel is central to his message. For what it’s worth, from Romans through 2Thessalonians, there are some 65 uses of the term. I would focus on just one or two at this point. “If anyone comes preaching another Jesus, another Spirit, or a different Gospel from that which you accepted, you bear with it nicely” (2Co 11:4). Here, it must be stressed that Paul has every appearance of being sarcastic in the extreme. He is not commending this behavior, but rather condemning it. Consider: “Even if we ourselves, or even an angel out of heaven, come preaching a Gospel contrary to what we have preached to you already, let whoever it is be accursed” (Gal 1:8).
It is impossible, you see, that this Word should change, should begin to teach what runs counter that that which it taught before, for it is the abiding, unchanging, eternally valid Truth of God Himself. It is God Himself. That may sound extreme, but I don’t think it is. We saw a few weeks back how it is the Holy Spirit who speaks through the preacher. And let me interject here that this presupposes that the preacher is legitimate. If we are hearing of some other Jesus, let us roundly condemn him from whom we hear it, for it is not words of life he is bringing, but corrupt words of death.
If it is a message contrary to the Spirit of the Living God, it should not be something we politely put up with, as Paul described the Corinthians, it should be something we reject utterly. Here, we must turn to John’s admonition. “Do not even greet such a one, lest you partake in his wickedness.” Listen! It’s not just immaturity in those who bring this stuff into the house of God. It’s not ignorance. It is wickedness. If there is anything the Charismatic movement has done which does harm to God’s cause, it is this: That they have taught their people to try anything that smacks of the spiritual, to accept anything that claims to be a move of God, lest we find ourselves opposing the Holy Spirit Himself. But, there is nothing in God’s Scriptures to support this. There is nothing that suggests the Holy Spirit is going to do all manner of odd things, things like barking, and dropping sparkly lights from the ceiling. Nothing! There is nothing to suggest He will go about the room randomly causing gold fillings to appear in peoples’ mouths.
If the conservative, reformed side of the Church has become overly hardened against the possibility of miracle in our day, the Charismatic side has become entirely too loose, allowing every bit of unusual activity to be demarked a miracle, never mind how or if it aligns with God’s revealed Word. On the one side we have a deep and abiding concern for sound doctrine, God be praised! Yet, that very concern has produced some spiritual blind spots. On the other side, we have a movement which by and large rejects doctrine as an unspiritual concept. Which is more likely to harm the church would seem an obvious choice. The one may block out a portion of what is Good and Lovely and True in its effort to maintain soundness and purity. The other may well admit in all manner of wickedness in the name of pursuing freedom in the spirit. But, that very act runs counter to the command – the rhema – of Scripture, which Peter has here reminded us abides forever! We should have a problem with that.
I suppose I must necessarily state clearly at this point that I have not fully eschewed my belief in the charismatic gifts. I have, however, likely eschewed my relationship with the Charismatic movement. It has done good, or more properly, God has achieved good through it. But, I am ever mindful that God achieving good does not automatically proclaim the means good. God achieves good through me, yet I remain a sinner. God achieves good through catastrophe, but that does not render catastrophe a good thing. God achieved His good purposes through men like Nebuchadnezzar and Sennecherib, yet they remained evil men. The Herods, the Pharaohs, the Neros of this world: He has worked good through the worst of them, but none of them was ever made good by His working through them.
I do think that the conservative, reformed branches of the faith have deprived themselves of something in rejecting the gifts of the Spirit as active. I also understand their reasons, their motivation, and commend them for their deep concern for their own charges. Far better that we be found to have built the fences in a bit closer than truly necessary, than that we have neglected to fence off those areas truly dangerous to the sheep! Which will the Shepherd be inclined to judge more harshly, those who neglected to allow access to some portion of the field which was perfectly alright, or those who have left open paths to the cliffs, leading to loss of sheep?
While I would be still find it intriguing to see what happens when Reformed concern for sound doctrine and Charismatic freedom to exercise the gifts that God has provided meet, I am not certain that the combination can hold. It seems to produce an unstable compound. I am told that there are those experimenting with just such a combined perception in our day, and I wish them well. But, it seems the history of the Church is against them. The tension between rational faith and mystical faith has been around probably since Abraham’s day, perhaps even Adam’s. The Church has oscillated between these two poles, but it seems to have been a rare and particularly brief period that it ever found itself at the balance point.
Back to Peter. Having point us to eternity, he circles back to implication. Given that you have been born into eternity, how should you then live? Well, to start with, “Be done with every trace of wickedness,” as the Amplified Bible sets out the opening of chapter 2. Be done with it! This is a restatement of the need to purify our souls, a thing Peter has spoken of as already done. You have purified your souls. You have obeyed the Truth. So, now, purify your souls! Get rid of all this garbage.
You know, as I look at that wording from the Amplified, I’m put in mind of the implications of leaven, which I recall coming up in last week’s sermon, as well, as we considered Mark 8:15. A little leaven spoils the whole lump of dough. It spreads in the dark. It may seem harmless, but its contagion is irresistible. Think of the Passover practice of cleaning all leaven out of the house. What’s that about? It’s not gluten allergies. It’s the need for purification. Get every trace of leaven out, every trace of wickedness, of sin. Don’t let even a glimmer of idolatry into your life, because it will surely spread. Don’t let the first hints of lust take hold, for if they take hold, they will hold fast. What was I reading yesterday? “Idolatry leads to slavery and slavery to idolatry.”
What begins is a thing so small we deem it harmless grows to become a disease so rampant we cannot hope to cure it. In this matter of purity, with its purpose of unfeigned love amongst believers, the little, harmless matters are set before us by Peter: malice, guile, hypocrisy, envy, slander. Of these, I think the most insidious may well be envy. The others are sufficient in their stench that we will tend to avoid them out of hand, at least amongst our fellow believers. Malice? Wishing harm to? Maybe that jerk neighbor of mine, but never my friend in the next pew! Hypocrisy? Too much work to pull off. And, slander? Well, ok. That one comes around too often.
But, back up! That neighbor? Who am I to say he may not one day be in the next pew? Indeed, ought that not to be one of my chief desires? Yes. This matter of love, while it is first to God and next to the Church, is not contained within the present bounds of the Church. It must expand beyond, to encompass one and all. Now, there’s a challenge for us!
Put it all aside. But, look at envy for a moment. Zhodiates set down something in his definition that grabs my attention: “Feeling pain and having malign thoughts towards excellence or happiness in another.” See the leaven in action! It begins with a touch of jealousy. Boy, I wish I could afford a car like his, a house like theirs. If that were the end of it, we could still wish them joy of their blessing, and even mean it. Maybe we would be stirred to work a bit harder so that we, too, might reach the place where we can be like them. But, it doesn’t stop there. It moves on to, “I deserve to have those! It’s not fair.” Why should he have it, and I don’t?
This is a rampant disease in our culture right now. It is the disease that leads to all manner of thefts and vandalisms and, I dare say, even rapes. It’s the disease that brought us the Occupy movements of a year or two back. It’s not fair that the 1% have more than us. We should all own everything equally. Effort shouldn’t enter into the equation. I want what he has, and I’ll do what’s necessary to get it, so long as what’s necessary doesn’t involve actually working for it.
If I go back to my younger days, I can recall the seeds of this very thing. I was (still am, I suppose) a collector of recordings. My record collection was pretty huge, and my tastes were pretty eclectic. Many of the musicians I favored were on the obscure side. They weren’t the big sellers. As such, their recordings could prove very difficult to find. Now, I wasn’t the only one with such tastes. Many of my friends (no surprise here) shared the same interests. So, picture the day when one of my friends comes by with the record we’ve both been hunting, and doesn’t bring a copy for me! Am I pleased for my friend, that he has this now? Am I satisfied that I could, if I cared to, record it on tape and enjoy it as well? No! I am too envious. It should have been mine. Why should he have it, and not I? Now, all the fun has gone out of it, and I’ll probably never get around to having a copy, even if I could find it. After all, it’s now something already heard.
Envy. Do you notice that of all those things noted here, this is the one that God saw fit to set down in the Ten Commandments? He called it covetousness. It is the same thing. And it is a most stubborn disease. Put it away! Get it out.
As happens throughout this letter, we get echoes of Paul in Peter’s writing. Even if he weren’t righting to the churches of Asia Minor, that would seem a thing we ought rather to expect than to be surprised by. But, the message from Paul is as clear as from Peter. “Put away all bitterness and anger, wrath and tumult and malice” (Eph 4:31). And, that was written to one of the very same churches Peter is addressing. And to those in Colossus, the message is the same. “You too! Put them all aside” (Col 3:8)! And, then follows a list much the same as these two. Oof. Look what follows. “Don’t lie to each other, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices” (Col 3:9). OK. Now think about how you answer today when somebody asks how you’re doing, how your week has been. Oh! But, I should answer with eyes towards heaven! If my thoughts are on the kingdom, I’m doing fine whatever may be going on with me. Well, yes and no.
There is perhaps nothing quite so annoying as that one who will tell you they’re fine even as they’re coughing and sneezing with an obvious case of the flu. This does not honor God, folks. It is lying. You can paint it any color you like, and it remains the same. It is lying. Be honest. There’s nothing sinful about having a cold. It does not demonstrate any weakness of faith, nor does claiming the cold isn’t really there demonstrating any strength of faith. If anything, it demonstrates a bit of foolishness and delusion.
But, lest I become too proud of myself, let me hear this as I should: You too! Put it all aside! All of this crap. Put aside anger. Wow! That’s tough for me. Stress levels go up, and anger comes out. I might be able to stuff it for a season, keep it to myself, but put it aside? Tall order! Put aside wrath. Yes, well, that’s what comes of stuffing anger rather than disposing of it, isn’t it? Malice? I think I’m done with that, but God knows better than I. Slander? It’s a fine line. To some degree, it seems to me impossible to consider the distinctions between various sectors of the Church without running at least the risk of slander. But, greater care and greater prayer… Abusive speech? Does this include cynical humors? I’m in trouble, then.
Maybe I’ll do better with Peter’s list. Guile: trickery, baiting the trap. Well, surely I would only do so in harmless fun, never as trying to bring another down, would I? I think that’s true. Hypocrisy? Much as we understand it to be something awful, it seems we must start here if we are to arrive at the reality. Love for our brothers may need to begin on this footing. Tolerance disguised as something more. But, it can’t stay there. We cannot be satisfied with this. That’s where Peter started us off: You have a sincere love for your brothers, now step it up! Make it a fervent and heart-felt love.
Oh, Elder Jeff, how shall you ever exercise your office apart from this? How shall you ever become determined to pray if those you are charged with caring for are but names, are of no particular consequence or significance to you? Sorry. I’m clearly back at the start of the passage. But, these points interlock, don’t they? If I’m battling the list of 2:1 I’m going to have great difficulty achieving 1:22. We love because He first loved us. John speaks this of our love towards God, but it holds just as true about our love for one another. We move from hypocrisy to fervent love because He loves us, and in His love for us, He brings about our rebirth, our refashioning into His own image. It is not a thing to sit passively back and await, but neither is it a cause for existential angst. Love because He commands it! Get serious about it, because He is serious about it. If I may quote David Bowie in such context, “It’s no game.”
We arrive at verse 2, having heard the negative half of the command, if you will. Do away with this, and now, seek to add that. Peter paints us a picture which is familiar enough, that of newborns seeking their milk. We all know how that goes. The baby will cry and wail until its milk is brought, then suck with gusto, even to the point of making itself sick, until the milk is gone. It won’t be long before he’s wailing again. And we understand as well that this is necessary to the baby’s growth. Peter takes this image and transfers it to the process of Christian maturity. Be like that baby when it comes to your sanctification. Sanctification is here spoken of as growth in respect to salvation. But, we cannot grow in our salvation as somehow adding to it. God has saved us, and that is a finished action. But, in respect to? Here we can and must have a part.
That sanctification is yet another presentation of purification. The point is being driven home over and over. Salvation is enough. But, salvation is not enough. You cannot earn salvation, but salvation must necessarily produce a response, a fruitfulness in you. The will, set free of its blinding bondage to sin, cannot but seek after righteousness with all the desire of a baby for its milk. Faced with the choice between life and death, it is unthinkable to us that the otherwise healthy and sane would ever choose anything but life. It is equally unthinkable that the saved would choose to be reprobate. Looking at my notes, I suspect this theme may return later in this study.
First, however, we have a bit of a textual issue. It is not that the word is in debate, in this case, but rather the translation. This milk that Peter urges upon us, what is it? It is the logikon adolon gala. This is truly a curious turn of phrase. The logikon directs us back to logos. Thus, most translations will simply take it as another term for word: The milk of the word of God. Yes, here is food indeed for the soul! Of course, logos has that sense of rationality, too, of intelligent expression versus animal noises or the like. So, then, the Douay-Rheims comes out with the ‘rational milk’. Even granting that this is the simplest definition of logikon, this would seem a most unlikely rendering of Peter’s intent.
Let us note, though, that there is no preposition here, no ‘of the’, and logikon is an adjectival form, not a noun. The noun, the subject, is milk, of which logikon is a descriptive. Well, word-milk makes no sense. But, then, rational milk doesn’t really do any better.
Also describing this milk we have adolon, which plays off the dolon of the preceding clause. Dolon, guile, is on the list of things to be done away with, and this milk, whatever it may be, is adolon, not dolon, guileless or, given the dairy product, unadulterated. It is, after its fashion, pure. It is not that purity of sanctification – hagiasmoo. But, it is unadulterated. It is not watered down. It has in no wise been altered. The pure milk of reason? Certainly, there would be those who would like to hear it thus. Such a rendering suits our sense of intellectual prowess. Here is pure reason for you! Take. Eat. But, that would seem more fitting in John’s writing than Peter’s, I should think.
Perhaps, stilted though it is, the better sense would be that milk which is the unadulterated word, the Gospel unchanged. Then again, that may be more a reading into the text than out of it. We have pure unadulterated milk. We have, if you please, reasonable milk. It is logical for us to long for that milk. That cannot be denied. If you have been called to holiness, desiring that which increases your holiness, grows you up in righteousness, is indeed a logical, rational desire. This becomes particularly applicable when we reach the final verse of our passage: “if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.” If you’ve had a taste, it is only natural, logical, sensible, that you should long for more. You have tasted and seen that the Lord is good. You have received this marvelous, unwarranted gift of salvation. You have been given a choice, a chance of heaven, who deserved no chance. How could you not desire anything and everything which draws you closer to that goal?
Rational? Nothing could be more rational! But, it seems to me the desire is what is rational, whereas it is the Gospel which is pure. I grant you that the syntax does not allow such a rendering. Adjectives do not find themselves applied to verbs. Yet, that taste logically leads to hunger. It’s like the dessert tray brought around your table at the restaurant. Perhaps a sight of what’s on offer will stir a bit of appetite. Perhaps the aroma of the sauce will convince you there’s room enough yet.
I would suppose, too, that a baby does not emerge from the womb knowing the goodness of milk. It knows hunger, but knows not the stuff which will satisfy. It must be introduced to this wondrous substance, and only then, having tasted, does the demand grow. So, too, the Gospel. If I look back prior to my receiving faith, the Bible was a book not unlike other books. It had some interesting stories. In some respects, it was particularly elegant prose. Other sections read more like a statistician’s diary, as dull as an accountant’s ledger. But, whether soaring fantasy or dusty history, it did not, at least to my senses, move the soul. It certainly wasn’t imparting life or bringing growth. Only after tasting God’s kindness, only after knowing His mercy, His grace shown to me when I was yet His enemy, did the words of this book begin to have an impact. And even then, it was a slow development. It took years to move beyond simply reading as I would any other entertaining text. In the years since, though my efforts at study seem to grow ever longer, there remains the matter of application. Though I am aware of growth over the years that have passed, I become aware of greater growth which remains. Does the longing remain as well? Yes, but in a different fashion, I think.
Let me turn back to Peter’s message, though. Long for this pure milk of Scripture because it is by this you grow. You grow ‘in respect to’ salvation. You do not increase salvation, but you mature in the life of the saved. You increase in sanctification. You mature into the full image of Christ. How? By sucking Scripture to the marrow. By setting this Word before your eyes, within your ears, settling it upon your mind moment by moment.
Here’s where things get tricky. It is that great tension of Christian living. All our efforts in this, if they are no more than our efforts, will come to naught. We couldn’t make ourselves any holier than a dung beetle by our actions. If God is not in the work, the work is not getting done. Yet, at one and the same time, God working in us requires us to participate in the work. He sanctifies, yet He calls us to sanctify ourselves. He commands and He equips, but He does not accept us as passive onlookers in the process of our own lives. This is so difficult a balance to convey properly. It is this very reason that leads to many folks insisting on a works-based righteousness, while others go off the deep end, ignoring that Paul long since demolished their line of argument, thinking that they can just live as they please since it’s all in God’s hands anyway. No! If there has been salvation, there must be fruit. And, God insists that fruit is not going to grow by His effort alone.
Back to Peter’s choice of phraseology: Milk, Peter? But, it seems that universally, this association of the Gospel with milk is utilized to the shame of the hearer. Paul, to whose acquaintances you write, will surely have heard him speak of it thus. Think of his rebukes to the Corinthians. “I had to give you milk because you couldn’t handle solid food yet. You still can’t!” (1Co 3:2). The author of Hebrews pursues a similar course with this image. “You should be teachers by this point, discipling others! But, no. You need somebody teaching you the basics again – milk rather than meat. Milk-drinkers are like babies, not yet accustomed to the word of righteousness” (Heb 5:12-13).
Does it seem a bit odd, then, that Peter is commending this same milk that should have proceeded to meat? Is he not at risk of insulting these folks he barely knows? Does he intend to imply that they are still effectively newborns in faith? Some would suggest this very thing, but the fact that they are already, as of his writing, tried in their faith would seem to indicate the opposite. It is not correction they are in need of but encouragement. Peter is not writing to a people whose practice brings their very state of salvation into question. He is writing to people who have proven their faith by their perseverance, but who need encouragement, perhaps some deeper training, lest perseverance wane. Why else this circular course of development? There are the constant reminders of Who has saved them, what they have been given, how costly that gift was to God. These are not calls to minimal, starter-packet growth. These are calls to maturity. Go farther! Don’t give up! Keep that goal in sight, keep the immensity of God’s generosity towards you in mind, and these trials you face will be kept in perspective. Don’t stop on the road to holiness. Don’t settle. Don’t buckle to the pressure to conform to this world. Continue the transforming process that God Himself is working in you. Hunger for that transformation to proceed, to even complete!
Seek to grow. That’s the simple message here. Seek to grow. Don’t be satisfied with such progress as you’ve made. Don’t plateau. If I consider this from my musician’s background, I know that musically, I have most certainly plateaued, perhaps even gone a bit downhill. Why? Because I have never, for all my joy of playing, been willing to put the effort in by which to excel. There is a reason why accomplished musicians never stop practicing. There is a reason why somebody like a McCoy Tyner is still a force of nature behind the piano at his age. It’s because he, and musicians of his caliber, has devoted the effort, has longed for growth, has hungered to draw nearer the perfection of playing.
Many of us, most of us, perhaps, long for perfection in our particular skills and pleasures. But, by and large, none of us is willing to do what it takes. We want the end product without the process and sacrifice required to obtain it. We bring that attitude with us into our church life, into our spiritual life. This may be the first and greatest effort God must put forth on our part, is to get us to recognize that we cannot grow without effort, that we must pursue the race of life if we expect to have victory. We are – I am anyway – lazy by nature. We are creatures at rest, and will tend to stay at rest unless somebody pushes us to act. Enter the Word! Enter the message of Hope which was preached! Enter the Holy Spirit to enliven our spirits, to recognize what we have tasted and long after all that God has for us.
But, let me offer one caution here: If what you’re longing for does not bring about that growth which pursues salvation as its goal, recognize that you are being distracted. Many of the ‘spiritual’ offerings on display for us in the media are just that, distractions from the mission God has set before us. Many of the things offered up for our spiritual development are really cleverly disguised impediments to growth. If it is not growth in respect to salvation, trending towards that real sanctification which is the produce of salvation, then it is not really growth.
Hear another concern, one which I have touched on already. Our biggest problem in pursuing sanctification is that we neglect the means. We are swift to fall back into habits of thinking we have the power within us to do what’s necessary. We are inclined, as Pastor was saying yesterday, to tell God, “It’s OK. I’ve got it from here.” But, it’s not OK. We haven’t got it from anywhere! Peter is giving us the answer here, if we will but see it. He urges the effort: Put these things aside and purify yourself. He then moves to the means. How are we to do this? By the Word, by hungering after the Word, but listening attentively to the Gospel preached, by desiring God. It is one of those works you simply cannot do by focusing on the work, but only by focusing on something else.
I would again take up a musical example. Yesterday’s service included a song which has a rather tricky part that falls to me to play, naked and exposed as it were, now that my brother trumpet player has moved south. I think we played this song all of once, maybe twice before, and it wasn’t amongst the things we practiced last week in preparation. Well, here’s the thing. If I am focused on fingering all the notes right, it is almost guaranteed that I will get some of them wrong. It is only when I get my mind out of the way and let my fingers do what they know to do that the melody flows.
Somebody out there’s going to be offended by this, no doubt. Christianity is no mindless or mind-blanking approach to life. Quite so! I would in way disagree with you. Yet, in a maturing process, there are myriad things that become, as we call them, second nature. We don’t have to think about them. We just do them. When I am driving, I am not constantly reviewing every least neural response required to control the car. I am barely thinking about the business of driving at all, even though my eyes are taking in data from the road, and analysis centers somewhere in the brain are doing the calculus required to plot my course. I am not carefully analyzing street signs to determine my location. I know the road, and frankly, I’ve been down this route enough times that if I’m not thinking about it, even if I’m really heading somewhere else, I’m likely to auto-pilot my way to work or back. Have you ever been there? Ever been going somewhere that’s along your work path but isn’t work, daydreaming as you drive, and discover you’ve driven right up to work, even though you weren’t going there?
How about sports? How well will you dribble the basketball if your entire mental focus is on the details of dribbling? How well will you approach the line when bowling, if you’re suddenly fearfully aware of your footing? Did I start on the right foot? Will I end on the right foot? Is my arm where it should be? Ack! Next thing you know, you’ve released the ball on the backswing, and your friends are scattering out of the way.
Music’s much the same. If we must focus on technique, we cannot focus on the actual song. If we are thinking fingerings and embouchures and so on, we have nothing left for melody, for improvisation. Something has got between us and the instrument, and that something is us. It’s our lack of dedication, failure to practice and pursue. I am willing to suggest to you that this pursuit of God, this pursuit of righteousness is in the same league. It requires effort from us, in order that the ways of righteousness are made second nature to us, made muscle memory that will act properly when we aren’t thinking, so that our thoughts can rise higher. It is not that righteousness becomes a thoughtless habit. It is that the lower-level mechanics, the stuff of milk, are so well learned, so well honed, that they will take care of themselves while we work on new skills, higher skills.
[11/12/13] The last matter I want to address in this study is that of assurance. Peter has made much of this very point in his letter already. The seed of your rebirth is imperishable, he notes in verse 23. Your inheritance is likewise imperishable, and irreducible (verse 4), and you yourself are protected by God’s own power unto the last time (verse 5). Peter is hardly alone in this insistence on God’s sovereign will working out according to His desire. Paul makes the point just as insistently in his writing. It was my study of Romans that finally drove the point home for me.
Prior to that, I had been of the camp that was quite certain we could lose our salvation if we were not careful. And, to back my point, I would point my finger fiercely at Hebrews 6:4-6. See? Says so right there! “Those once enlightened, having tasted the gifts of heaven and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, having tasted God’s good word, and the powers of the coming age: If they have then fallen away, there is no hope of renewed repentance for them, for they have once more crucified Christ and put Him to open shame.” They have partaken of the Holy Spirit, so clearly they are believers, right? They have been enlightened. They know Christ. And yet, here is the writer of that letter, and the Holy Spirit through him, talking about such as these falling away and thereby losing all hope of any future repentance.
I have to say that this remains a compelling argument. Even though the Apostles exert so much energy assuring us that salvation is by a faith that we can’t even claim is of our own devising, being that it, too, is a gift from God, they also exert great energy urging us to work at salvation. Which is it guys? Did He give it freely, or do I yet need to work it out for myself? Is it a free gift or a conditional covenant clause? And, if it is so permanent an election as to remove all thought of falling away, what is the point of that section of Hebrews?
Let us be clear about this much: The record of Scripture and of our own experience makes it clear that there are those who seem to us pillars of the Church who suddenly depart. The Apostles dealt with it. Consider Paul’s comments regarding his co-laborers as he nears the end. This one abandoned me; that one’s gone back to the world. John saw the church beset by charlatans, and saw his flock unsettled by believers who were abandoning the church. What was his response? “They went out from us, but they were never of us” (1Jn 2:19), and notice how he follows up on that point. “If they had been of us, they would have remained with us. They left in order to make it obvious to us that they are not of us.”
I think of a dear brother, for so I counted him, at our previous church. This guy was a rock. He was so solid a Christian, deeply involved in many ministries in the church. Then one day, he was gone; off with another woman, leaving wife and children behind. What? How can that be? John has already given us the answer, but we don’t want to hear it – not when it’s a friend of ours involved. I know others from that church who still cannot accept that he was no Christian. His current condition would seem unquestionable, but his prior condition? Surely he was. Well, if he was, then we must look at that Hebrews passage and lose all hope for him, for the case is clear: Tasted, departed, crucified Christ again. The summary judgment is: No repentance possible.
If, however, he was never of us in the first place, surely in the infinite mercy of God there remains at least the possibility that he who had faked it in our midst might yet be reached, might yet hear God’s call, and this time for real. Or, shall we account it a temporary falling away? That would seem to present us with yet another problematic view. If it is possible, in God’s sovereign will, for us to temporarily backslide, how is that different than what the text from Hebrews describes? If, having once fallen away, all hope of repentance is removed, how then can it be temporary?
Yet, from experience it would seem there are those who have done just that. They have departed the fold for some years, but then had enough of the fallen life. Scripture would elsewhere seem to describe their like as prodigal sons. They had tasted God’s goodness, but wanted the world. Only when the true, bitter taste of the world had burst upon them did they relish God’s goodness once more. This, too, would appear to be a real experience of real believers. And, as to that brother I noted, who’s to say what lies in his future? I cannot. God certainly can. If God sovereignly chooses to see him restored to grace, shall I do aught but rejoice? By no means!
All of this, though, leaves the riddle of that passage unsolved. If we can’t fall away because of a sovereign God, then these he mentions must never have been among the called. If, having fallen away they cannot be restored, what exactly is it that limits God’s power? Is His offense greater than His mercy? Granted, there comes a point where Justice must prevail. But, again, if falling away brings summary judgment, what exactly was the point of the parable of the Prodigal? Is there hope or isn’t there?
I am no closer to a satisfactory answer here. What I can say is this: The overall message of Scripture, in its myriad voices and forms, insists that God’s sovereign call is effective, and salvation being effectively His work upon us, is as certain as He is certain. The seed is imperishable. The inheritance is reserved in a place where it cannot be lost to us. The prodigal is restored. All of this runs counter to what seems the obvious understanding of this troubling passage. And yet, it must stand that God’s Word does not – cannot – contradict itself. My understanding may fall short of perceiving the harmony in cases such as this, yet the fault is with me, not the text.
The best I can do is to look a few verses farther on. “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking this way” (Heb 6:9). Gah! That is the key to it all, isn’t it? The author himself has given the answer. I write this not to scare you, not to shake your confidence in salvation, but to stir you towards greater efforts towards sanctification, to stir you towards such works as demonstrate both to you and the world around you that this rebirth has occurred.
Well, then. I’m feeling much better all of the sudden. Turns out that this author is doing exactly the same thing Peter is. Here, on the one hand is this awesome, irrevocable, free gift of God. Here on the other is the fruit that flows from that gift. Here is salvation, bought and paid for. There is sanctification, still God at work in you, but also now you at work in God. The working out of sanctification adds nothing to your salvation, earns nothing in that regard, perhaps in any regard. It’s not done for earnings, anyway, else it’s not really sanctification, but appeasing an idolized false view of God. No, it’s an expression of the gratitude, joy and love that have been spread abroad in our hearts by this God Who has saved us. And, it has this secondary effect of reinforcing our sense of security. We see the effects of the wind of salvation in us, and thereby are that much more certain that He is in us.
Lord, I thank You so much for this! While You have long since convinced me of the perseverance of Your saints, yet this passage has continued to cause some confusion in me. Forgive me for not having read more carefully in years past! And, thank You, as well, for preserving me until understanding should come. Let Your Word stand, though all men be proven liars. Let Your Truth hold, though all men fail. Lord, You are indeed amazing, and Your ways remain far above my own. But, thank You once more for opening my eyes to this conflict of texts resolved.
