New Thoughts: (11/16/13-11/21/13)
Two of the first questions that I have concerning this passage relate to the first clause: “And, coming to Him as to a living stone…” The first would not be a question at all except that certain translations alter, ‘And, coming’ to ‘Come’. Where such variation is encountered, it behooves one to ask which more properly reflects the underlying syntax. In this case, should this be taken as a statement of fact, as most translations present it, or is it indeed a command, as others present it?
To answer that question, we must entertain the full sentence, which continues into verse 5. The reason for this is that the verb in question is actually a present participle. As such, it would typically have certain syntactical dependencies on the main verb which, in this case, would be the ‘being built up’ of verse 5. There is a circumstance wherein a present participle might be taken as a command, but that situation only applies when there is no other verb. I.e. “Be preaching.” This would be taken as a command to continually preach. But, we don’t have that case here. We have the description of an action contemporary or concurrent with the main verb.
That main verb is presented in the indicative mood, and is thus a statement of fact in itself. But, here is what I find the more striking relationship between participle and main. The participle is given in the middle voice, indicating an action that the subject is taking in regard to himself. The subject, you, is coming to Him of its own volition. Sorry. There seems no set of pronouns that properly suits that sentence. Let me state it plainly. You are coming to Him of your own volition, under your own power, by your own choosing. Then, in the main verb, things switch to the passive voice, indicating something being done to or for you. You are being built up as a temple. You are not doing it yourself. You cannot do it yourself.
What we have here is a beautiful demonstration of the doctrine of concurrence. It is the first of two such examples in this passage, and by far the one to be preferred. Look at this opening. You willingly come to Him, and He in turn fashions you – of His will and effort – into a spiritual house fit for a holy priesthood. Both work and rest are operative. Again, there is not the slightest possibility of any one of us, even all of us together, managing to establish a spiritual house suited for God’s worship. I’ll take some of the unfamiliar language out of that. We cannot be a church of God without God. We cannot be a congregation, a fellowship experiencing real koinonia, except God is doing the work. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Ps 127:1). We know the verse well, but this is exactly the point. Elsewhere in the songs of Ascent, David records, “Behold! How good and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Ps 133:1). Good? Pleasant? It’s downright miraculous, and that’s rather the point. Apart from God working in those brothers, dwelling together in unity is as unlikely as Hermon’s dew showing up on mount Zion (Ps 133:3). Apart from God, the harmonious fellowship of the church will be nonexistent.
That said, the church will be just as nonexistent if nobody comes to join themselves to it. The church cannot exist apart from God, but the church cannot exist apart from its people, either. Thus we have this concurrence: Man’s will choosing to come to Him, and God’s will making it both possible and fruitful to do so.
This beautiful doctrine becomes the more critical for us to comprehend as it applies to the primary subject of Peter’s letter. Our sanctification is not something we can achieve by dint of main strength. We cannot render ourselves holy. At the same time, it will not happen without us. It requires God to achieve, yet God has been pleased to command that we give it our best effort, and He is clearly disinclined to act upon those who would be passive lumps. It is a both/and situation. We labor, He labors. If we labor alone, we are striving after the wind. He, being disinclined to waste His time, will not labor alone. He will work with us, yes, but He will not work on the slothful. Concurrence. Our will concurring with God’s will. Is it not a thing most fully to be desired? It is the deepest longing of our hearts, the very thrum of the Lord’s Prayer. “Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.” Thy will be done by me as by Your heavenly host – immediately, thoroughly, and without question or debate.
Now that we have established this concurrent effort of Lord and bondservant, we hit another question, one perhaps more difficult to answer fully. What, exactly, is this image of living stone intended to convey. What is a living stone? What would these first recipients of Peter’s letter have made of it? Is he getting all spiritual on them, and they are scratching their heads wondering just what he’s getting at, or is he presenting them with a concept near and dear to their thoughts, the which can then be applied to better grasp his point?
Honestly, my first thought is that living stone would be like that stone which makes up so many caverns, typically limestone, where the dripping of water is yet shaping the stone, growing it. Consider how one is instructed not to touch the cavern walls. Why? Because the oils from our fingers will kill the stone. That, however, is a modern conception, and unlikely to be known to Peter’s recipients. More simply, the idea of life, used in this clearly metaphorical sense, is normally used to indicate things which flow as though alive, or which give refreshment. In limited applications, its meaning is that the item in question has life-power in itself, and is able to exert that power upon the soul.
Now, a stone is a thing inanimate, and it is not something we associate with maintaining life directly. Water, particularly living water, fresh water, we see as a necessity. But rocks? You can’t eat them. You can’t burn them to cook something else as food. You can’t wear them to clothe yourself. They are not, then life-giving or life supporting in a direct sense. True, they are the means of building larger shelters, but those larger shelters are more towards a luxury than a necessity. Nomads live without such shelters. They cannot, however, live without water.
Adam Clarke looks back to the Hebrew language to find the source of the image. He notes that the terms for house, son, and daughter, all share a common root having to do with building from stone. From this he draws forth the idea that the structure built from living stones indicates a house build of sons and daughters, a family. In this case, of course, the family is God’s, and we are the sons and daughters, Christ Jesus being the firstborn.
This is not an unreasonable supposition. How it would have been understood by those up in Asia Minor, on the other hand, depends whether they shared the same linguistic history. If Peter were writing to churches that were predominantly Jewish in their composition, then his image would likely resonate. But, to a primarily Gentile church, would these linguistic roots be so clear. For all that, would they be clear even to the typical Jew? How many, after all, pay much attention to the etymology of their own native tongue? How many really take note of how words are associated to such a degree?
I am somewhat more inclined towards the perspective Barnes offers. His thought is that the temple is the primary focus here. As with Clarke, he seems to suppose a Jewish sensibility amongst the recipients, and therefore leans toward Peter offering a comparison between the spiritual Church of believers presented in Christianity and the splendid, physical temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps so. He had certainly been impressed with that edifice in his own time. But, for Gentiles, the temple in Jerusalem likely did not mean so much. What did mean something would be the temples in their own cities.
Consider the thrust of the message thus far. You have come to Christ. You are dealing with rejection by your neighbors, feeling a bit of persecution. You used to be like them and now you’re not, and they rankle at the change. But, be steadfast! Now, carry that into this image, and see how Peter is pointing out something thoroughly beautiful to them. Yes, your neighbors have these lovely stone palaces for their lovely stone idols. But, their idols are no more than dead stones, and their temples are as dead as their idols. You, on the other hand, are being fashioned into a living, life-giving temple to the God of Life Himself! You have come to the living Rock, and are being made living rocks yourselves. Here, it seems to me, we are back at that metaphorical sense in which the thing spoken of not only has life in itself, but can exert that life upon the soul – in this case, the soul of another.
We have been made alive by coming to the Living Stone. He has imparted of His life into us, making us alive. We, in turn, are set amongst the dead of this world to spread that life. We are, if you please, that stream flowing out of the temple in the midst of heaven, or at least the streambed through which the Stream flows. That is our purpose! It’s as old as the oldest Scripture. “Go forth and multiply.” That command has never ceased. But, it is not constrained to mere physical procreation. It is the same command as “Go and make disciples.” Go, pour forth of this life that has been poured into you. Do not be cisterns containing dead water, but rather wells gushing with the water of Life.
Bear in mind that this stone Peter refers to is, in this instance, lithos. I can well imagine that Peter, Petros, would have a particular affinity to the various terms the Greeks had for stones. We have two of them in the space of this passage, but lithos is the focus. Lithos, if one wishes to make distinctions, is primarily the sort of stone used for building. It is larger than the pebbles or sling stones, but not the natural edifice of petra. Around New England, we might associate it with the sort of stones hauled out of what would become gardens or pastures, either built into walls to keep the cows from wandering, or used as foundations in the house itself. In this setting, I suspect the stones that would come to mind are somewhat larger affairs, maybe four to six foot lengths of basalt; blocks of stone, if you will.
We can allow, and would even expect, that in this matter of building, these lithos stones have been chiseled, shaped, squared up to create a viable, long-standing structure. Thus, we see the point that we are ‘being built up as a spiritual house’. This is more than just heaping stones one atop the other. It is more than merely assessing the natural rock to see where it might best be stacked. It is fashioning the stone into useful, well squared blocks. And that image brings us forward into the next part of the passage, as Peter sets before us the age-old picture of Christ our Cornerstone.
Now, we are firmly into the metaphor of building. Here, then, is the cornerstone, and what is the cornerstone’s purpose? It is that stone from which the lay of the entire building is determined. It is thus a stone which must be particularly well-squared. If the cornerstone is not itself square and true, then the structure built from it will likewise fail to be square and true. But, square or not, the cornerstone is the reference point from which all else in the building is measured. If one wishes to see the lay of the foundation, the edges of the cornerstone define the line. If one wishes to remain plumb as the wall rises, it is from the vertical of the cornerstone that one finds the set of each successive layer. This is why the concept of the cornerstone is applied as an emblem of great honor. It is the mark of high position, of great importance, and, to some degree, of perfection.
Now, this is an image the folks reading this letter were likely familiar with. They would certainly know it from life. They would also have heard it from Paul’s writing. “The church has been built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20). What may not have been so familiar to them are some of the other Old Testament associations of God as the Rock, Ha Tsowr. It does seem likely, though, that they have heard these passages Peter brings forth. These are, after all, things Jesus Himself spoke of, and they have surely been taught of His teaching.
While I shall shortly have to backtrack to pick up other threads in this study, I want to finish chasing through the imagery while we are at this point. Peter moves from relaying the message of the choice Cornerstone of God, from whose sure measure He is building us up as His church, to the issue of the church’s seeming smallness. If God is building, why do so many around us fail to come to Him? Here, Peter pulls from Isaiah 8:14. Isaiah, in his term, is building on that common recognition of God, Ha Tsowr. David was particularly fond of presenting our Rock, our Strong Tower against the enemy, and now, here comes Isaiah saying, yes, He is our Strong Tower. But, for you, this same great Rock is going to become a stone you strike and stumble over. He Who is your Sanctuary shall become the snare in a trap that shall prove deadly to you. This, as the ISBE points out, was turning their image of God right on its head. Their Protector was become their doom. Of course, that was a matter that had been in plain sight since ever God made covenant with Israel. Do this, there shall blessings. Do that, there shall be curses. On the one hand life, on the other death.
It would be well for us in our age of complacency to remember that God does not change. He has not developed a sudden soft spot for sin. He continues to be holy – perfectly holy. And the demands of holiness have not ceased from those who would serve Him. This is also part and parcel of Peter’s message. Why, after all, is he bringing this up in the first place? Is he merely trying to give them some comfort because their small home gatherings don’t have the splendor of, say, the temple of Artemis? I think not. No, his theme is sanctification, and his reminder in this is that the temple of a holy God must be holy as well. It is a house for a holy priesthood, the which we will be reminded in the next section, you are. You are both sanctuary and priest. Therefore, you are doubly needful of being holy as He is holy. It is, or should be, a very powerful argument. It would have been to a culture which, even in darkness, set such weight upon the qualifications of priests. It doesn’t require specific awareness of Jewish religious practice to grasp this point. It would have been understood by all that the priests to any purported god must surely be kept reserved for that god’s exclusive use. And that is the underlying sense of holiness.
Separated for God’s use alone: That’s the most cutting definition of holiness. Of course, when we speak of God as being holy, there must be another meaning, else it becomes an empty statement. God is reserved for His own use alone. OK. Nice to know, but I could say the same of most anybody, couldn’t I? No, holiness also bears the sense of purity, and in God’s case, absolute purity. To be sure, that purity is demanded of His servants as well. The requirements set out for the priesthood, for the construction of the temple, for the building of altars, all of it reminds us that we are nearly as sinful as He is not. Don’t think to fashion the stones of the altar, you’d only render them unclean. All of those rules for ceremonial cleanness were to this same end. It was to render to the servant fit to be in the presence of the pure-hearted King. No physical blemish could mar His priests. No physical blemish could mar what was sacrificed to Him. It would render the thing or the person unfit. This does not match His design, does not represent His majesty. It represents the corruption of sin upon His handiwork, and sin cannot abide in His presence. It must be destroyed by His presence.
With this, we arrive at a critical matter, one that shall no doubt recur as I proceed through the letter. I am called to be a temple of the holy God. As such, I must be holy. As such, I am to be separated for His use alone. Can I even begin to suggest that this describes me? No. Yet, it is supposed to describe me. This is not just for those we hire as pastors. This is not just for those we charge with leading the church. After all, even there we assign the task as a second job. It’s not as though we pay our leaders to lead. We seek those called to the task, but we recognize that it is not their sole task, and at least as far as things are measured by time spent, we don’t expect it to be their primary task in life.
The question, though, is not what we expect, but what God expects. God expects holiness. God expects a people who have willingly set themselves apart for His exclusive use. God expects a people who look at their workplace as a true vocation. It’s not just a way to earn a living. It is a God-given task, done not for a paycheck but for His glory. It matters little what that work is. Yes, there are certainly professions available to us today that could hardly be supposed to measure up as vocations given by God. We cannot begin to suppose we are called to the business of promoting sin by a holy God. But, if we are called to this work, does it not behoove us to ask why? Does it not demand that we see it as more than just how we keep food on the table? Indeed, were we not told to stop thinking in that fashion? Why, yes we were! God knows you need these things, and He is still Yahweh Jireh. He still provides, and He still provides perfectly. No, your labors, though they may be the instrument through which He provides, are not primarily about provision. They are about mission. When you work, do you work for God? It’s more than just doing a good job. It’s more than giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. It’s more than work.
Truth be told, I would have to confess that my behavior in the workplace is more constrained by the world’s demands for silence on matters of religion than it should be. This is not as it should be, and needs to change. I am, however, learning, slowly learning, to view those with whom I work as bearers of God’s image and not burdens to be borne. I would that I could say I was being consistent in this new mindset, but old habits die hard, and the roots of cynicism and pride run deep in me.
I am going to divert briefly at this point, as there is something that is coming clear to me. When it comes to this labor of sanctification, it seems our tendency – mine, at least – is to become focused on those matters that are externals. We have habits which we are ashamed of, things we are sure we ought not to find associated with the life of faith. They may not be sins, but they are unsightly. And, as we think about sanctification, these are the first things that come to mind, so we start striving with ourselves to be shot of such habits. Smoking, cussing, the occasional glass of wine or beer; all of these must go! Or, whatever it is that may be on your list: Sunday sport shows, dancing, television in general. The thing is that we find these externals nearly impossible to deal with.
But, then God gets our eyes on an inward state, a heart change that’s really far more displeasing to Him and far more in need of changing. I take, for example, the treatment of coworkers. All that was needed, it seems, is awareness. I needed to be aware of my own mindset, and of God’s. I needed to be aware that this is where He’s focused just now, the thing that’s really bothering Him. And, while I cannot speak yet to lasting change, I can say that the change comes swiftly, and dare I say, easily. It’s certainly easier than dealing with those external matters that mean so much to my pride, but little to God.
It is timely, this reminder that sanctification only counts when it is that sanctification which God desires. Unless the Lord builds the house… And yet, we are so inclined to labor in vain. We will turn to vain labors because we are embarrassed by habits that don’t fit the norm, whether of church or of society. Societal norms shift over time, after all. Go back a few decades, and it would barely raise an eyebrow to be known as having an after dinner drink, or even a before dinner drink. It was normal. Nobody would much care if you smoked all day long. It was normal. Societal perceptions have changed. Now, we are not supposed to care too much if you happen to have gone vegan, or if you are more attracted to those of your same sex as your opposite. Why, we’re not even supposed to care if you reject your own sex and insist on being known as one of opposing gender. But, don’t be seen smoking or drinking! That’s so gauche.
Now, some of these we recognize are larger issues than those of taste. Some of these are clear violations of Scripture. Others, we could certainly drum up Scriptural guidance against. Yet, there are many other such issues that lie in a grey zone. Oh, I know. There’s no grey in the church, only black and white. So the theory goes, anyway. But, if there’s no grey zone, then why so many denominations? Why so many debated doctrines? Sorry, but there’s a lot of life that remains in the grey, even for those of soundest Biblical faith. And a large part of the problem is our tendency to mistake our own opinions for God’s. Every now and again, God has to correct us in this, and turn our eyes upon the issues that concern Him.
All of this is good to have before us as we contemplate Peter’s focus on being holy as He is holy. It’s almost as though the most critical word in that directive is as. Being holy as we construe holiness is a worthless venture, for our conceptions of holiness are entirely worldly and corrupt. The things that impress us don’t impress God. The things we think are good are not the things that are good. It is either that holiness and sanctification God has defined and towards which He is working, or it is empty vanity on our part.
So, then, I return to Peter’s letter. There is this point to be recognized: The temple of a holy God must be holy as well. Surely, if his priests required such holiness, the place that would be known as His abode, where His very presence resides, must be holier still. Think about this point made in Hebrews 9:23. It was necessary that these copies of the heavenly things be cleansed with sacrifices. But, the actual heavenly things themselves needed cleansing and that, by a better sacrifice than the copies. Think about that. Even the true, heavenly temple of God, His own house, needed cleansing.
Bear that in mind as you look upon that temple of living stone of which you have been made a part. Here is Jesus, the Living Stone, the Rock, set as our measure, set as our rule and our guide. And, we are coming to Him, for He has called us. And, as we are coming to Him, He is building us up, living stones ourselves, into this spiritual house, a temple fit for a spiritual God. In this sense, we might come to view this idea of living stones not as describing some quality of the stone themselves, but rather as making clear he is discussing things figuratively. It is a spiritual house. There is a physical temple in Jerusalem. There are other physical temples scattered throughout Asia Minor. They are lovely structures, pleasing to the eye and impressive in their scale and grandeur. But, they are nothing. This is a spiritual house God is building. Note that! God is building. You are blocks in that building, but you could no more stack yourselves into a fit temple for God than Abraam could have shaped stones to build a better altar than God could provide for Himself. If the stones (you) need fashioning, it is a fashioning that needs to be done by God’s hand, else your lines will be crooked, and the building fashioned from your life will be a tottering structure unsafe for man or beast.
But, where it is the Lord’s hand that bears the chisel? Where it is the Lord’s eyes that determine whether the lay is true? Ah! There is a house made perfectly. There is a building four-square! There is a foundation laid along exact lines from the Cornerstone, and wall raised absolutely plumb. You come (for He has called), but He builds. That’s the deal. That’s the process of sanctification. That’s the concurrence we most desire, God working in us as we work in God.
So, then, the temple must be holy, but that temple alone shall be holy which God has made for Himself. He has chosen to make it from the very lives of the saints, saints whose lives have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, which foundation God Himself has ensured was laid out true to the Cornerstone, Christ Jesus, our Lord.
And here in this spiritual house of which we are component parts, there is this call to offer up spiritual sacrifices, sacrifices made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Now, it may be that Peter means much the same by spiritual sacrifices as he did by spiritual house. He continues in a figurative vein. You are not to offer real sacrifices, physical sacrifices of either animal or grain or drink. Those things are gone for Jesus, the once-for-all Sacrifice, has been given for us. But, there are sacrifices we offer in this more figurative sense. What are they? Well, we need not guess, though Peter does not spell it out for us. Others, Paul particularly, have given us many good descriptions as to what sort of sacrifices the Lord finds pleasing.
Consider the most obvious of these examples. “By the mercies of God present your bodies as living, holy sacrifices acceptable to God. This is your spiritual service of worship” (Ro 12:1). Well, this might address some of those habits we’ve been talking about, eh? But, I suspect the primary focus has to do with those sexual sins which were a prevalent feature of pagan practice. If marriage is a holy vow, and the means provide by God by which we may best model and know the intimacy of the Triune relationship of the Godhead, if He views us as His betrothed, how critical that we act as those who honor the covenant of marriage. How important, that in this most intimate of acts we hold ourselves pure. Elsewhere, there is that urgent reminder, “Don’t keep offering your body’s members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness” (Ro 6:13). Or, do I merely make excuse for my own acts?
Here is another example of the sort of sacrifice that is pleasing to God. “Let us offer up continual sacrifices of praise to God through Him! That sacrifice is the fruit of lips giving thanks to His name” (Heb 13:15). You know, there’s something we can do all day long, and that rather seems to be the implication: Continual sacrifices of praise. What’s up in your life? Praise God for it! No, I don’t suggest we praise Him for those trials that come our way, for pain or for suffering. How foolish. But, for the help that He is in those present times of need? Absolutely! For the results of discipline, however painful the lesson? To be sure! If we are presently in a place of want, we can continue in praises that remind ourselves and the world at large, “I have received everything in full. I have an abundance, being amply supplied” (Php 4:18a).
That particular verse actually points to another form of sacrifice that satisfies our Lord. Why was it Paul could say he was amply supplied? Yes, it was because God provides. But, note the instrumental means. “through what you sent via Epaphroditus.” Paul makes the point explicit. “This is a fragrant aroma, an acceptable and well-pleasing sacrifice to God.” What is? That you gave to the need of His servant. Insomuch as you provide for the least of these, you provide for Me (Mt 25:40). When we set ourselves to actively serve His servants, we are His servants and the sacrifice we make from our possessions towards such efforts are pleasing in His sight. It shows that our eyes are on heaven, and heaven’s King. It answers the question of whether we are serving God or mammon. Occasionally, I suspect, we need to make such offerings for the express purpose of subjugating the power of mammon in our lives.
Then, I think, we come to the most precious of spiritual sacrifices. Paul writes of it towards the end of his letter to the church in Rome. He returns to the topic of his calling, and notes that he was called to minister Christ to the Gentiles, to be to them a priest of God’s Gospel. Why? “In order that my offering of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Ro 15:16). Oh! How we need to grasp this connection of points. They (we) were made acceptable offerings for another. First point: We do not come to Christ of our own effort, but by the efforts of others, and our arrival amongst the elect is no credit to our account, it is to theirs, being an offering they have made. Hard to think of it that way, but, “I am an offering somebody else made to God”, is not a bad means of keeping one’s perspective.
But, note this: That offering – you, me – was made acceptable by being sanctified (made holy, the very topic of this whole letter of Peter’s) how? By the Holy Spirit. Now comes the point which truly grabbed my attention this morning. How does the Holy Spirit sanctify us? The primary means, if I follow back through Paul’s line of reasoning here, is through the priests administering God’s Gospel. Is it possible for Christ to come to some lost and wandering soul by other means than the Word of God preached? Philosophically, yes. He is able to do as He pleases, and if He must speak through goats or trees, or even stones, He can certainly do so. But, His own Word says, “How shall they call upon Him in whom they don’t believe? And how can they believe in Him if they’ve not heard of Him? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Ro 10:14). Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Given current circumstances in my life, I am a bit touchy about what passes for the ministry of the Holy Spirit today. Much is made of things supernatural, and that is all well and good. But, so much is made of it that there is a strong tendency to make the whole thing a practice of idolatry. If God isn’t moving in these supernatural, miraculous ways, the reasoning (such as it is) goes, then He is not here. If He isn’t healing everybody in sight, then our doctrines and theology are worthless, and our faith must be a dead thing. If we’re not getting Holy Spirit goosebumps at every service, we’re obviously in the wrong church. But, nowhere does Scripture describe this as the focus of God’s house or of God’s people. Nowhere! The focus is sanctification. The focus is evangelism. The focus is preaching the Gospel of God, not the magic show of God, not the localized, specialized healing ministries of God. Nowhere do we find the apostles rushing forth to set up Spirit-filled hospital tents. In fact, the acts of healing that come about in the lives of the Apostles seem almost incidental. Their focus is on salvation, on lives pulled out of darkness and brought into the light of Christ. Their focus in on matters that will persist beyond the grave, matters of eternal concern.
Heal this body so often as you please and, unless the Lord returns first, it shall still become dust. Cure as many ailments as you like, and the life spent on this earth will still turn out to be temporary. This tent must be shed. Why then are we so exercised to keep repairing it, patching it? Why is it that, however often the Scriptures remind us that these present trials, aches and pains ought to mean nothing to us when set against the glory to come, that we choose instead to agonize over our present aches and pains? How can this be? Where is the maturity of faith in that? OK. I have said my piece, and need to put this aside. Would that I could find the words and the gentleness of spirit to make this truth more clearly visible to eyes caught up in the attractive fires of supernatural phenomena of debatable purview.
Lord, my Lord, You know of what I speak, and You know the impossibility of resolution, as viewed from my perspective. I know the impossibility does not apply to You. There is discord where there ought to be harmony. There is something terribly wrong here, and it is beyond me to answer in my own power. How often, in the past, have I known the wisdom of allowing You to address the situation, rather than to take it into my own hands? Yet, I have sought to faithfully pursue this office in which You set me, as watchman over this small tower. If I have erred in my assessments, Lord, correct me. But, You know my concerns. You know my love. Far be it from me, my God, to blaspheme that which is truly Your own work. But, far be it from me, too, Holy Lord of all, to allow the masquerading enemy of Your throne access to one who is Your child. Oh, my God, my Lord, my Rock! Bring us safely within Your walls. Give us ears only for what You are speaking, and grant us to be satisfied – more than satisfied – with the means You choose for our feeding. Let there be no strange fire on the altars of our hearts. Holy Spirit, guide us and guard us that our offerings may be pure and holy.
[11/20/13] I am changing tack this morning, and would begin by considering a contrast of terminology that arises in this passage. This contrast is threefold, covering the mindset of believers, unbelievers, and God Himself, in their assessments of Jesus. For the believer, there is this self-propelling action of coming to Him, proserchomenoi, which has overtones of agreeing with Him. Bearing in mind the imagery of construction which is so prevalent in the passage, we seek to be part of His household. We might think of that in the sense of the lifetime bond-servant who, though he could go free and return to his own pursuits, chooses instead to remain bound to this good Master.
The chief contrast in regard to our actively joining with Him is with the action of the unbeliever: apodedokimasmenon. That is a lengthy word with a lengthy meaning, although it receives no more than ‘rejected’ in our chosen translation. Wuest, as is his wont, expands this term to reveal the fuller sense of the matter. One may find he has done so to excess, but it is worth reading the once. “By men repudiated after they had tested Him for the purpose of approving Him, in which investigation they found Him to be that which did not meet their specifications.” Set in political terms, this is the mindset of, “throw the bum out.” We have taken his measure and found him wanting.
Think about that for just a moment, and see the sheer arrogance of the unbeliever! We have taken God’s measure and found Him wanting. Surely, He is impressed by our fortitude and quakes at our disapproval! Of course, that statement finds its source in God’s words to Belshazzar which, when translated, contain in part, “You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Dan 5:27). Be that as it may, the unbeliever has willingly, wilfully opted to reject Christ as worthless. He is, in their opinion, unworthy to serve as the measure of a life that is true. In truth, they could care less about a life that is true, preferring their own crookedness. Indeed, it is precisely because His true would reveal the pervasiveness of their crookedness that they feel they must reject Him.
Consider, also, that those who had the dubious honor of first refusal in this matter were those who most reasonably ought to have recognized His worth: The Pharisees and those others who held sway as the authorities on true religion. “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (Jn 1:11). Messiah came, and those who had long awaited His arrival found Him unsuited to their preferences. This Suffering Servant could not be the heroic warrior champion they wanted. He could only be the Messiah God appointed. Not good enough. They are hardly the last to find the God Who Is disappointing because they have their own idol they would prefer Him to be.
Finally, we have God’s perspective represented here, as a second contrast to the mindset of unbelief. They judged Him unfit for office and threw Him out (or would if they could). God, on the other hand, counts Him choice, eklecton, select. Don’t begin to suppose that the concept of eklecton would be satisfied by choosing any old one, on the basis that somebody has to be chosen. God, particularly in this role of Savior, was hardly going to settle for the lesser of two evils, as we tend to do. No, no. God, being perfect in Himself, chose perfectly, chose that which is perfect, select, the best of class. In this case, I dare say, He chose One Who was, is, and ever shall be in a class by Himself! Here, indeed, was the only one suited to serve as the Cornerstone of a truly holy household, a temple perfectly fit for a perfectly Holy God.
Peter, however, is not offering this by way of explaining the situation in and around Jerusalem, at least not entirely. It may well be, depending when this letter was written, that the fall of Jerusalem is very much on his mind. It may well be that these Gentile believers, being relatively local, had heard the news of Jerusalem and felt its fall must be a reflection on the God Who purportedly dwelt there. If He could not even protect His own chosen city from Rome, of what value was His worship up here in Asia Minor?
However, I am mindful of the overall thrust of Peter’s letter, with its strong overtones of perseverance amidst trial. What was the trial for these people? It wasn’t the sorts of persecutions which Nero and later emperors perpetrated against Christians. It was, were we to put it in terms familiar to our own present-day landscape, the persecution of being a minority, particularly a minority by choice which had once been with the majority. I see many in our community of faith expressing similar concerns to those which might have bothered these young believers. If God is so great, so powerful (and I do believe He is), how are we to explain His failure to save all these others? From the unbeliever, we often hear a related argument: If God is good, how is it He allowed this evil (or that evil) to happen? Why doesn’t He just keep us all safe, secure and free from sin? If He can’t do that much, why should we serve Him? But, again, the believer can find himself, if not shaken, then discouraged, by the limited impact of the Gospel.
One thinks, of course, of the parable of the seed and the soils (Mt 13:3-9). Sower, the problem lies not with you. You are doing your job as you ought. Neither is the issue with the Seed, the Gospel. No, the seed is quite good. The problem is the soil. Just as not every patch of ground serves well for gardening, so not every human soul serves well as a bearer of faith. The seed cannot grow where there is no depth, where there is too much worldliness. It is neither your fault nor God’s. The soil is as it is, in this instance, because it chooses to be as it is. This is the great evil of sin. Sin is not absentminded mistake. Sin is a willful choice. Sin is a determined rejection of God’s direction, not an act done in ignorance. Oh, there were times of ignorance. His own word speaks of this, and those things done in our ignorance, He has chosen to forgive. But, now the Word is come. Now, there is no excuse of ignorance. There is only the willful rejection, the sinful, unpardonable rejection, of apodedokimasmenon.
Hear, this you in Asia Minor! Hear this, you in New England. They stumble over Him because they wilfully reject Him. They refuse to believe Him. It’s not that He’s unbelievable, not by a long stretch. It’s that belief would require of them that which they remain unwilling to do. Now, comes the nub of Peter’s point. Their unwillingness does not somehow render them more powerful than God. They are not, in their unwillingness, bucking His will. No. God’s grace is irresistible. So, too, is God’s wrath. You see, they were appointed to this doom. That fact does nothing to mitigate their guilt. It is a doom they have gladly chosen. Yet, their choice was also in perfect accord with God’s will. It could not be otherwise, for God’s will does not – cannot – fail to achieve all that He determines. For them, this result of stumbling, of falling into the trap of damnation, was a fixed and established result. It was set, fixed in place by the only One who can set a thing so firmly and unalterably.
But, make no mistake! This stumbling over Him, these outward acts of disobedience and rejection of Him are but the outworkings of their inward attitude – an attitude of unbelief, determined, even fiercely determined unbelief. Their fall, then, does not show God weak, nor your own faith futile and self-deluding. Not at all. Their falling under the weight of God’s justice will glorify Him just as surely as your salvation by His mercy. God long ago proclaimed this truth to His servant Moses. “I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion” (Ex 33:19). There is a clear corollary to this. “I will not show compassion on whom I do not will.” God is in control. He is assuredly in control of Himself, else He is no God. He is also in control of every least or grandest aspect of Creation. That includes you. That includes the determined unbeliever down the street.
If that unbeliever is to come to the Light of Christ, it shall be because God wills it so. It may be through your efforts that the Light dawns on him, but only because the Light has chosen thus to dawn. Unless the Lord builds the house… Unless the Lord empowers the preaching, they preach in vain who preach at all. But, God ordains that we preach. God ordains that we preach without our eye being caught up in the results. The results are His business. The sowing is ours.
It feels an odd thing, that we should find encouragement in the stumbling of the lost. It would be not just an odd thing, but evil, were we to find this our sole reaction. The fact that they are appointed to this does not make them any less fitting a target for evangelism. The greater fact is that we simply don’t know who is appointed to what. That they are appointed, we can state with certainty; whether to salvation or damnation we cannot. Therefore we sow, and we sow with abandon. Therefore, we hope all things, and seek with all that is in us to bring them to saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Above and beyond that, we have the repeated, clear command of Scripture to speak far and wide of this God Who saves. I was pointed back to some of those watchman passages from Ezekiel in this morning’s Table Talk devotional. “I have appointed you a watchman to the house. When you hear from Me, warn them from Me” (Eze 3:17). “I have appointed you a watchman for the house. You will hear from Me and warn them” (Eze 33:7). The overall flow of those messages is one with that of the parable of the seed and the soils. Our part is to sow, to warn, to speak. We cannot be responsible for reception. Neither can we suppose ourselves sufficiently informed as to determine who will hear advantageously.
Yet there is this encouragement. There is, in the commands given the watchman, in the explanation of the soils, and in Peter’s words here, reason to keep going, to keep believing, to keep preaching. Look! If they don’t listen, it’s not your fault. If they don’t come to faith, it’s not because you have chosen poorly. It’s not that God is weak, assuredly! He is the Almighty! The existence of the lost, and their rejection of Him is no comment on His value. Indeed, they reject Him because He Himself has appointed it so. They chose, but more importantly, He chose. Therefore, though we sorrow greatly for the lost, we ought not to be disturbed over much by them. It is well that our hearts break for their condition. It would be terrible were their condition to lead us to question our own faith. We who have tasted the Lord’s goodness and seen His beauty ought to be thoroughly at peace as to ourselves, as to our future and as to our present. At the same time, we ought to be in travail for those around us who have either failed to see the Light, or have seen Him and rejected Him. Even knowing it is possible that this is their appointed doom, yet we do not know that with certainty, and therefore ought also to persevere in seeking out our God, that they, too, might know the Life He alone grants.
The realities of life in this fallen world are such that the Christ, the sole Redeemer and Savior given mankind, will ever be met with mixed reaction. “He is an aroma from death to death for some, but for others, the aroma of life to life” (2Co 2:16). We know this, and yet, knowing Him as we do, it seems unfathomable that any could find Him an aroma of death. As Paul follows the thought, “Who is adequate for these things?” Indeed. That’s where Peter’s going with this. How is it that Ha Tsowr would be a skandalon? How can this same giver of Life be a cause of death? We feel that reality to be almost as inappropriate as the way our words so often jump straight from praises of God to cursing out our neighbor, and with James, we are inclined to say, “These things ought not to be” (Jas 3:10). Surely, if blessing and cursing ought not to be found in our mouths, they ought not to be found in our God? And yet, He is clear enough that He is Author of both. We must come to grips with that. We must come to recognize that He is glorified both by our salvation in Him and by His judgment upon those He has appointed to His wrath.
Now, I would be doing gross injustice to this whole passage if I refused to recognize my own condition as it is revealed by these words of Scripture. I am old enough to understand that my own failings are hardly likely to be unique. Yet, they are by no means excused however common they may be. You see, as I have been looking here at my Rock, the Cornerstone Who is also a stone of stumbling, I have to recognize that I am thoroughly inclined to try and have Him both ways. I come to Him as my Rock, my Lord, my King. And yet, so very often, I willfully choose to disobey His clearest commands.
I have already explored the issue of real, inward sanctification as opposed to outward appearances of sanctification, but it deserves further comment. It is not that the outward has no value. It’s that the value of the outward consists solely in its truly reflecting the inward. Much like the response to efforts of evangelism, our own response to efforts of sanctification is in many ways a thing out of our hands. If we are to be sanctified, it will need the working of the Holy Spirit in us. At the same time, we must evangelize, we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12). We must work with Him if we expect Him to work in us. We must work with Him because we know He is working in us!
Seeing my continued disobedience in both realms, evangelism and sanctification, I must recognize that much remains to be done in me. I can trust in the reality that He is at work in me, and He is faithful to complete the work. But, I cannot rest in that as one idle and at ease in Canaan. No! My Father works and therefore I must work. It is no Messianic delusion of which I speak, but He is pleased to work together with me, and I ought surely to be pleased to work together with Him. Unless He is building, my labor is in vain. But, if my labor is nonexistent, I have no right to expect Him to build.
Lord, God, I thank You for this resounding call to the work of Your kingdom. I thank You that You are increasing in me the desire for this sanctification You require of me. I pray You will find me malleable, responsive to Your shaping and reshaping, that I may be a fit vessel, a useable stone in the house You are building. God, so often I feel utterly inadequate, a borderline fraud. I know my love for You, and yet I feel so often that I am doing nothing. I don’t pray enough. I don’t love enough. I don’t care enough. I don’t try enough. I feel that way, and I have no cause to doubt but that my feelings are accurate. If anything, I probably still account myself farther along than I truly am. Yet, I have this: My hope is in You, not in myself. My desire is to see Your work both in me and through me, advancing as You desire. Lord, where I have been resistant, forgive me and aid me in truly repenting of my wicked ways. Where I have been slack, stir up fire. Where I have been stubborn, break me, my God, that I may more truly take up Your yolk and plow Your fields. Purify my heart, O God, for it is clearly beyond me to do so apart from You, and to fail to do so must keep me apart from You.
