New Thoughts: (12/24/13-12/28/13)
Before I get to the meat of this passage (and there is much to chew on!) there is one particular word used here that gave rise to some degree of surprise. I’m sure I’ve looked that term up more than once in my years of morning study, but it still took me by surprise this time. That term is kosmos. Given that we have transferred the term almost directly into our own language, we have a near instant grip on its definition, at least as we use it. We think immediately of the universe. If we didn’t have that sense of the term before, we certainly did after Carl Sagan got done with it.
Now, you may be scanning the passage before us, wondering how you missed Peter’s reference to the universe. We are, after all, considering a very homely scene, that of married life. What has the universe to do with this? The answer is nothing. You see, the reference of kosmos to the universe is more of a secondary meaning, an application by simile. The core meaning has to do with ornamentation, or what the NASB puts as adornment.
I rather like Thayer’s offering on this term: “An apt and harmonious arrangement.” We husbands are familiar with the lengths to which our wives or daughters will go to arrive at what they consider to be an apt and harmonious arrangement of their appearance. We, being men, are more inclined to think that a quick shave, and clothes that don’t mismatch too horrendously is quite sufficient, at least for most occasions. Indeed, we are likely to view those occasions that require more of us in this sartorial regard to be rather a bother.
But, the women? No. I see this so often with my own daughter. Even going out to a local restaurant with her parents requires seemingly endless hours of primping. The hair must be just so. The outfit carefully selected, arrayed, examined once on, and then rejected in favor of something else. Nor will this carefully arranged furnishing of the self do for whatever may come afterwards. That requires a whole new pursuit of the ritual.
Now, as a man, I can certainly appreciate the results. It is assuredly pleasing to the eye when a woman has gone to such efforts. It is with a great degree of pride and joy that I walk out with my wife on my arms, a jewel in her own right, improving my own appearance just by being at my side.
But, allow me to consider how that idea of adornment, harmonious arrangement comes to find an application to the universe. When we speak of the cosmos, at root is this idea of the ‘heavenly hosts’ – the stars, the galaxies, the nebulae and novae, and all the other wonders there to behold – we are speaking of what we might call (as Thayer does) the ‘ornamentation of the heavens’. We are observing God’s own ‘apt and harmonious arrangement’ of His creation.
We understand, at some level, that the only way there can be a science of astronomy, the only way we have achieved the ability to send vehicles to distant planets, and even beyond the edges of what we consider our solar system, is that God has indeed set things in careful arrangement. There is order in the universe. Even in what we perceive as chaos, there is order. Slowly, the math is catching up to that reality, and finding the means to describe it by something approaching law.
But, God, who clearly appreciates and approves order, simultaneously appreciates and approves beauty. He defines beauty, just as He defines order. He defines all, if we carry the point to its conclusion. It just stuns me to consider once again the care He has taken to make the universe around us not only orderly, but stunningly beautiful. As our scientific knowledge expands and we explore ever further into the magnificence of the universe in all its expanse, into the minutia of sub-atomic structure, we see it over and over again in new and marvelous ways: order and beauty, beauty and order, bonded together as co-equal rules of existence.
Now, consider, if you will, that when we speak of the cosmos, we cannot but include ourselves in what we observe. We, too, are part of the universe. We, too, are part of God’s grand creative endeavor. By His own definition, we are the very pinnacle of that endeavor, the one bit He opted to shape in His own image. Yet, all creation reflects the glory of the God who created it. All creation reveals its Maker after its fashion.
To my point, though, as part of His kosmos, we, too, are part of the ornamentation of the heavens, or we are intended to be. We, too, in our original form, are an apt and harmonious arrangement. We, too, as we are restored by His Spirit, are things of beauty. We may not view ourselves as such, but the key factor is that He views us as such. Ergo, such we are.
Now, allow me to segue from this cosmic perspective to that which Peter is setting before our attention. Part of this beautiful, apt and harmonious arrangement that God established at the outset is the institution of marriage. Having made Adam and set Adam in motion, He recognized a certain incompleteness in the image thus created. In the interest of theological precision, I must note that this hadn’t escaped His attention in the initial effort. Adam was created in perfect awareness of his incomplete nature. That was already in the plan. And thus came Eve. It was not until man and woman stood together on the earth, together in that intimate closeness we find echoed in the sun of sungkleeronomois in this passage (which I shall get to in its place), that the fullness of His assessment, that it is very good, was in place.
Here in the marriage of the first two human beings was the greatest beauty, the finest ornament, God had for His cosmos. Here were two made one. Here was a visible modelling of that intimate relationship God has in Himself, the fellowship of the Triune Godhead. Here was a most beautiful beacon set amongst the lesser lights of the universe, a beacon which would shine through all the ages, indicating the path to God.
Does this, then, suggest that a Christian outside of marriage is somehow a lesser being? By no means! There are those upon whom God sets the call of celibacy, the difficult demands of the single life. And, I do count those demands difficult. It is not that married life is all bliss and no trial. Were that the case we would not have Peter’s message before us, nor would we have all those many other passages addressing married life. It is a huge challenge to blend two disparate lives together into an apt and harmonious arrangement. But, by God’s Spirit, it is more than possible.
And, what a lovely calling to have upon one’s life – two’s life, I should say, but that defies the language. Here we are set to exemplify the best of God’s creative work. Here we are set to demonstrate the pinnacle of fellowship, the greatest of earthly intimacy. And that is but scratching the surface of God’s purpose in marriage. But, further investigation of that purpose comes later in this study. For now, we have the difficulties set before us.
It strikes me that one thing we might ask about the Scriptural treatment of marriage’s challenges is why so much more effort is spent on the wives’ challenges, and so little on the men’s? It’s not just here in Peter’s letter. Paul approaches the topic with much the same seeming imbalance of focus. It would be easy enough, I suppose, to write it off as merely the enculturated perspectives of these men. Both are Jews, sons in a very patriarchal society. Peter seems likely to have been a patriarch in his own right, although we have no record of his sons or daughters. We do know he was married, and he would seem to be the eldest amongst his siblings.
But, is it just cultural influence? Or is it the Spirit of God influencing our apostles? The latter, admittedly, does not preclude the former. But, I would also propose that the Spirit of the Living God is perfectly capable of producing perfectly good doctrinal statements from the flawed material of our culturally influenced selves. Would this not fit within the scope of all things which He works for His good purpose? Certainly.
One possible explanation for the relative volumes of material for wife and husband is that the wife has, in many ways, the more difficult assignment. Submission to another’s authority is rarely easy. Already, she has been called to submit to Christ, Christ whom she has not seen, as being of prime authority over not just her actions, but her character and thought as well! She has been called, quite probably, to submit to the master of the house where she serves as domestic slave. And now, she is called to give that same degree of subservience to her husband? Where is she ever to be free? What sort of liberty is this into which Christ has purchased her, if everywhere she turns there is this call to submit?
To be sure, the husband’s task is no small thing, either. To be charged with the final say in all matters, to be set in this place of first among equals; maybe it sounds grand in theory, but it’s terrifying in practice. It wears on you. If it does not drive you to Christ as your own source of command and strength, it will drive you to despair. Why can’t these people make any decisions for themselves? Why must every little thing come through me? Did I ask for this? No. No, I did not ask for this, nor did my wife ask for her role. God has cast us in these roles, and He is a gracious director. He provides the necessary values, and develops the character according to His specs.
That does not necessarily make the process easier. It does, however, make it bearable with peace undisturbed. It makes it beautiful, for we understand that He is working in the process, working on us and through us.
So, then, this call Peter sets upon the wives is not a thing to be jettisoned as being a cultural artifact. It is not some ridiculous throwback sentiment that we ought to ditch, given our more enlightened condition here in the twenty-first century. Honestly, we would do well to consider whether we are truly more enlightened, or whether we are living in a deeper darkness, being the more deluded about ourselves.
To the instruction! “Be submissive.” The syntax here is interesting. We are presented with a verb in the Passive voice, which would typically lead us to say that here is something being done to the subject. But, were that the case, we would expect something more like, “Be made submissive.” Wheeler’s explains this situation. While the passive participle we have here would normally mean just that, the lack of a main verb to which we might attach this participle alters the case, giving the verb the force of command. Here, there is indeed no other verb to which we might apply the verbal adjective which the Participle represents. Ergo, command it is.
The other syntactical aspect to which we ought turn our attention is that this is a Present Participle. Present Participles are used to indicate continuous action. In some circumstances they present us with actions begun in the past which have continuing impact in the present. Other times, they are simply pointing to the constant application of the action, where other forms would point to a one time event.
So, we have here a command, but one that is going to take constant effort. Be submissive. Be constantly submitting to your husband. Do so in the same degree you would submit to your master, were you a slave. Or, if this makes the picture plainer for you, do so in the same degree you would expect your slave to submit to you as master. And, lest we forget where Peter is pointing us when he says, “in the same way,” recall that the slave, per his instruction, was to give good service, humble and obedient, even to the most miserable of masters.
How ought we to apply this? Is Peter really saying that however abusive your husband may be, however unfaithful, violent, worthless, yet you must tough it out, and submit to whatever he chooses to dish out on you? I’m not sure there’s an easy answer to that. Certainly, there are facile answers we could present. Often enough, we incline towards such responses. Piety rises up in us with the full force of the Pharisee, saying, “Of course she must. Divorce is not to be mentioned amongst the godly.” Others, spurred by an outsized compassion, would be directed by the emotional response and say, “Of course not. God is not calling us to put up with that kind of treatment.” Both views, it seems to me, fall short.
Are there cases in which God Himself would advocate for divorce? Well, I might point out that He Himself has pronounced terms of divorce on His bride, at least in the figurative language of prophecy. He has laid out at least one or two conditions under which divorce is acceptable: adultery and abandonment. Ought we to hear a third acceptable ‘a’ as cause, and add abuse? If so, what shall constitute abuse? Do we draw the line at physical damage? Do we include mental abuse? Verbal abuse? It seems to me that verbal abuse, at least, falls below the bounds of just cause for divorce.
“In the same way,” must color our understanding of what Peter is pressing here. Even if they are miserable, ungrateful louts, obey. Even if they have a most critical spirit, make all manner of unreasonable demands, serve. Indeed, serve as though this were not the case, as if they were the best of masters. For, in serving, you do actually serve the best of Masters.
But, understand this, for it is of critical importance. What is being commanded here is not the subjugation of the weak by the strong. In the ideal, where husband and wife are both of the faith, the clear, overall message of the Gospel is one of equality, of mutual submission. Peter will make this clear when he turns to the husband’s responsibilities. Elsewhere, we see it more clearly declared. “Submit yourselves one to another.” We see Jesus instructing His apostles for their leadership role. “You are not to lord it over others.” That’s not it! The leader whom God approves leads by serving. The master who calls himself godly, proves it true by caring. The husband who knows his Lord and Savior loves his wife as Christ loved the church, ready to sacrifice everything for her well-being, and rejoicing in her partnership as they navigate this life.
But, Peter, we must recognize, is not addressing the ideal. He’s addressing what we might consider to be the nightmare scenario. He’s addressing those who find themselves unequally yoked, as Scripture describes the case. She has become a believer, but is already married at the time. Her husband not only has not become a believer, but may even be actively opposed to this new faith. After all, from his perspective, it might offend the gods he serves. If there was strife in the household before, this is only going to exacerbate it. If there was harmony, it has likely been brought to an end by the crisis of the Gospel. What to do?
Persevere! Don’t try to proselytize them. Don’t make their lives miserable by constant, nagging preachiness. Live it! Just live it. This is going to take continual effort. It’s going to test and stretch you day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute. But, don’t let it wear you down. Persevere in the strength of the Lord. Insist on doing good, on being godly. Serve as serving the Lord. It really helps. And hold this hope near to your heart: This may be just what it takes for them to come to Christ themselves! As they observe that you respond to their darkness with such light, conviction may come. Understand, too, that the response of the convicted may not be particularly pleasant. But, conviction may yet lead to repentance. The unflinching light of your example may produce a longing in them to come out of their darkness. “I want what you have.” It may seem an awfully selfish sentiment by which to come to Christ, but it’s not. It’s the soul responding to the call. It is the most natural sentiment we ought to feel when the example of Christ’s life at work is set before us.
Having urged such perseverance on the wife, I must needs turn to the husband for a moment, though it be out of place in the flow of my intended writing. Let me first assume that you, husband, are a believer. Then, you must recognize that as you are set in headship over the house, it is not for power or prestige. No! You are being entrusted with the care of God’s own sheep. Think back to the end of the last chapter. You have returned to the Shepherd of your soul. He, in turn, has seen fit to entrust to you the role of undershepherd. Your flock may be no more than the one you wed. Perhaps He will add to that flock the children you two bring into this life. But, go you! Go and read the messages our Great Good Shepherd has had for his undershepherds in times past. Consider what has become of the Aaronic priesthood, which failed. Consider what has become of the Levites, who failed. Consider what has become of those false prophets, of the Pharisees, of the Sadducees.
All of these had charge of the sheep, and all of these came to consider their office and its prestige as more important than the sheep they were to watch. After all, those sheep belong to God, not them, so why should they care? Let Him take care of them. Oh, and He will! He will. But, in His generosity and wisdom, He set you in the place of caretaker.
Now, husband: Given the task of shepherding your family, whatever its size; know that they belong to God. Know, too, that their security, their spiritual health, has been made your responsibility, and you will be held accountable. Loving this job yet? You weren’t set here to act like some petty tyrant on his throne. You may be given the duty of command, but in no wise are you granted the right to act as tyrant. You may be in charge, but you are in charge of equals. You are in charge as being the strong one. Yes I know. Look at yourself. That’s strong? But, God says you are strong. Therefore, in Him you are strong. You are responsible. Like it or not. Look, then, to the example of your own Lord and Master for the model you are to follow. Lead by serving. Prove your worth by caring, and caring deeply. Be ready, should the occasion warrant, to lay down your life in the service of those you lead. Cherish them above all things, for they are precious in the Lord’s sight, and must be so in yours as well.
[12/26/13] At this point, I need to take a brief detour down to verse 6. Having made his case, Peter closes with a rather enigmatic statement. The NASB states it as, “without being frightened by any fear.” What is that intended to mean? It comes across as a rather odd statement, a tautology as well. What else would one be frightened by? The Living Bible, and its successor, the NLT, try and set cause to the fear, the former putting in brackets, “offending your husbands”, and the latter saying, “fear of what your husbands might do.” It’s certainly possible that this is what Peter was implying, but it remains speculative. He does not directly state any particular cause for fear, but leaves the cause wide open: any fear.
The HCSB gives us a hint, at least, that we are considering two different terms, rendering the clause, “frightened by anything alarming.” Indeed, there are two terms in play. The verb is phoboumenai, coming from phobos; a familiar term to us, being the root of phobia. but, the noun is not derived from phobos. It is ptoeesin. Why? Is Peter, or his amanuensis, just exercising his vocabulary? Vine’s offers no insight as to the distinction. The Exegetical Dictionary suggests intimidation, and indicates the object as being ‘from the men’. It doesn’t help that this is the only place the term arises in Scripture. But, here is another source pointing to the implied source of fear being the unbelieving husband.
I note that the more familiar phobos also makes an appearance in verse 2. What the NASB renders ‘respectful behavior’ is this same term. We often have that sense of phobos set before us with respect to our perspective of God. We may tend to render it as reverence in that case. But, reverence and fear are close-coupled. There is a reason both terms tie back to phobos. God, being all-powerful, and perfectly holy, is cause for fear in us. For, we are weak and imperfect in our holiness to say the least. But, fear shifts to reverence for Him in that we know more of His character than just His perfect knowledge of our sins, His utter hatred for sin, and His capacity for wiping us out entirely while being perfectly just in doing so. We know He also loves us and is merciful towards us, so desirous of forgiving us that He spent all of history preparing the solution to our dilemma.
So, then, which sense of phobos ought we apply here, given that there is that second, less ambiguous term provided as the causal fear? Is there justification for taking his meaning as being nearer to reverence than to terror? Or, perhaps the middle ground of awe? The KJV opts for that meaning in the second term: “not afraid with any amazement.” But, it would seem more fitting to try the reverse, “not amazed or overawed by any terror.”
There are places where such an understanding would seem apropos. One thinks of Peter’s point later in this letter. “Don’t be surprised by the fiery ordeal in your midst. It comes for your testing, not as some strange thing happening to you” (1Pe 4:12). Given Peter’s rather circular approach to his subject, it’s not entirely out of the question that he is on the same point here. However, the immediate topic is that of marital relations, particularly amongst these Gentiles newly come to faith, where the one spouse believes and the other does not.
We might ask whether the imbalance is still in sight when Peter turns to the husband’s duty. It cannot be, can it? For he speaks of the wife as co-heir to grace. Clearly, then, in addressing the husbands, he is addressing believing husbands of believing wives. He cannot be addressing the unbelieving husband, for they give him no audience. Where, then, does Peter’s thought shift from the unbalanced relationship to the balanced? Or does it? Where is the instruction to the believing husband of an unbelieving wife?
If it is there, I think we must find it in the first two verses, where we might suppose that what is applicable to the wife implies what is applicable to the husband. But, this gets us no closer to understanding Peter’s purpose in verse 6. The whole of that section is very specific to the role of wife, it would seem. Or is it? It seems to me there is a passage which speaks of submitting to each other, although my concordance is failing to turn it up for me.
Let me consider some of Paul’s teachings on this topic. We have Ephesians 5:22-33. There, wives are called to be subject to their husbands, and husbands to love their wives sacrificially, to the point of, “He who loves his own wife loves himself … just as Christ also does the church.” In Colossians 3:18-22, we have much the same collection of relationships as Peter has presented, although in different order: Wives subject to husbands, husbands loving wives, children obeying parents, fathers not overbearing, slaves obedient to masters. To the Corinthians, Paul writes more directly about the topic of divorce. Should they leave this imbalanced relationship now that faith is come? No! Stick it out, he says. Who knows but that you may save your spouse (1Co 7:15)? There is, at least, a balance of perspective there, that the duty towards unbelieving spouse, as it applies to fidelity and to persevering, runs to both sides.
Well, let me consider one more offering on this topic of fear. The Amplified Bible gives us this bit: “Not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you.” I note that they refrain from assuming any particular cause for these things. At the same time, it seems to me they apply a particularly feminine aspect to the matter. This would seem to reflect a very male perspective on female thought-life: Hysterical fears, unnerving anxieties. It’s not as though men are immune to such things. But, it does seem that such feelings, even feelings in general, are more apt to be expressed by the women than the men. You can lay that to cultural influence or genetics or whatever other theory you please. But, the difference is observable and undeniable, whatever its cause.
I think of Paul’s concern, expressed to Timothy, in regard to those false teachers who “enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses” (2Ti 3:6). Before we get all up in arms at Paul’s patriarchal prejudices, consider. Women in that time and culture were more likely to be homemakers than laborers. In our own culture, that largely held true up until the forties, when, having shipped our men overseas to fight the war, it fell to women to fill the void in manufacturing efforts. But, even then, the tendency for women to be workers at home continued for decades. For some, it continues to this day. Even with the concerted efforts of militant feminism to instill the desire for employment and advancement in women, the evidence is coming in that many of those who answered the siren call want nothing so much as to go back to how things were. They find they were indeed captivated, led on by impulses.
I find it far more concerning that those who are at home are set in a situation where every would-be teacher has an avenue to their eyes and ears. It was bad enough when televangelists took to the airwaves, making their living off of just this sort of audience. Now, even the cost of broadcasting is removed, as the internet gives anyone who cares for one a platform to promote their own perspective and agenda. I suppose I must include myself in that, mustn’t I? I pray I am being faithful in what I write. Certainly, there’s no money and no following that might tempt me to run astray.
Hysterical fears, unnerving anxieties, misleading impulses: If I wanted to boil it down to one word, I would choose emotions. Women are inclined to be more emotional, men more coldly logical. It’s not a hard and fast rule. It’s an inclination, a generalization. There are guaranteed to be exceptions. It’s not that men are emotionless. It’s just that emotion tends to be subjected to logic, however good or poor that logic may be. Women are typically seen to lead more with emotion. Logic may catch up at some point. Even the feminists, in that they propose the world would be so much better off if led by women, are making the tacit point that there is a difference in the male and female way of looking at things and doing things.
Is this, then, what Peter is looking at? He does, after all, move from this instruction to women, that they not be dissuaded from the right course by powerful emotions, to a logical exhortation to men. Treat them as you ought because it’s the logical, intelligent thing to do. Understanding dictates that you ought to value them highly, ought to perceive them as your equals in spiritual matters however they might compare physically.
I cannot speak conclusively on this. I have to say, though, that if one views this fear as having its object in the husband it makes a bit of a problem for us as we counsel women with abusive spouses. Should we counsel them to tough it out? Should we, as with the domestic of the previous section, just tell them to buck up? Is that the wise counsel? Is that the proper expression of God’s own love for us? When we were slaves to sin, did He simply tell us to buck up, and insist on not sinning, however intolerant our overlord was? No! He bought us, redeemed us, took us from the slave pits and set us under His own magnanimous leadership. How ought we to translate that to our own counseling in such a situation?
It is a difficult call to make. God’s general abhorrence for divorce is clear. At the same time, He does not ban it outright, but makes limited exceptions in allowance for our fallen natures. He knows our weaknesses; that we are but dust. He also knows that we are, in our fallen estate, inclined to abuse and take advantage of every loophole. So, He leaves it clear that the ideal remains zero tolerance for divorce. But… Adultery? Exit clause. Abandonment? Exit clause. Abuse? If there is very real danger of very real physical harm, I am inclined to think that grace trumps law, and there is an exit clause. It is telling, though, that we find no such exception made explicit in Scripture. It’s not as though spousal abuse is something new to our oh-so-enlightened age.
Let us set aside that question, though, and return to the fear. Given the overall flow of Peter’s thoughts here, I find it difficult to suppose the husbandly response to good behavior is the concern at hand. If they are observing chaste and respectful behavior, where is the cause for rage? Is that really a likely response? The only cause one might find would be church attendance, or time spent in service to Christian causes. You’re not paying me enough attention, woman! But, that ‘be submissive’ clause would seem to erase even this as a cause for offense. If they demand more of your time, submit. There’s a line, to be sure, just as there is a line when obedience to civil authority ceases to apply because that authority, having set itself in direct opposition to God’s authority, has become null and void.
But, I find it difficult to see Peter driving at fear of reprisal for doing good. Oh, there will always be false accusations to deal with, undeserved tribulations. But, here the example is otherwise, is it not? Are we to suppose that the husbands are offended because their wives no longer dress up? Depends on whether you see verse 3 as outright prohibition, or, as so many translations soften it, as saying beauty doesn’t stop here. God adorns the heavens, and doesn’t leave it at some internal beauty hidden behind a homely, even ugly visage. Why would we suppose he calls on women to do so? It’s not that hair styling is evil, or jewelry is antichrist, or fine dresses are inappropriate. Consider how God bedecked His own priests! God likes beauty. God likes beauty even better when the outward show represents the inward state. There’s that marvelous definition of Truth again. It is the very definition of apt and harmonious, that the outward beauty reflects inward beauty.
I am, I think, more inclined to take the view that Peter is addressing the emotional response. Don’t let fear drive you. Certainly, don’t let fear drive you into responding in ungodly fashion. Stay the course! Do good no matter what. Don’t repay evil with evil, but overcome evil with good. Be constant. Persevere. Allow nothing to divert you from the Way. Fear only God, and that in reverent wonder at His loving, willing, compassionate power to save you from your sins.
[12/27/13] With that, I think we can turn our attention to godly valuation. How do we evaluate the worth of our spouses? We could extend the question and ask how we evaluate the worth of any other individual, but the spousal relationship may offer us the greatest challenge in this regard. Some have looked at the various teachings of Paul on the subject, which I have already reviewed here, and perceived a distinction. Wives are to respect husbands. Husbands are to love wives. Observation of the general traits of humanity reveal a certain wisdom in this distinction of valuation. Women, the more emotional partners typically, look for an emotional valuation of their worth. Men, being more driven by thought and/or physical strength, seek their value in respect. Whether in matters of physical competition or matters of intellectual skill, respect for accomplishment does indeed seem to be the need of a man more so than of a woman.
At root, though, we ought to recall the fundamental message of the Gospel, that all are equal in the sight of God. As such, all ought to be equal in our own sight. I dare say a woman who sees ample expression of love for her, but has no respect from her husband is not going to be satisfied with the situation. A man whose wife grants him every respect yet expresses no love for him is not going to consider his life a case of wedded bliss. The reality is, were our needs the key consideration, we all need both. We all need love and we all need respect. The one without the other rings hollow.
But, our need is not the basis for a proper valuation. God’s perspective must be our basis. Here, I find the Amplified to be helpful as it expounds on the respectful behavior of verse 2. “You are to feel for him all that reverence includes: to respect, defer to, revere him — to honor, esteem, appreciate, prize, and, in the human sense, to adore him, that is, to admire, praise, be devoted to, deeply love, and enjoy your husband.” Notice that expansion. Respect is not some steely response one is duty-bound to give. It’s not, as was explained to me at one point regarding such political positions as governor, respect for the office if not the man. No. Admire! Adore! Deeply love and be devoted to him. It’s not the office of husband that is in view, it is the person of your husband, that bearer of God’s image.
As we turn to the husband’s role, notice the foundation laid in advance. The woman of God, her character expressive of His own, “is precious in the sight of God.” It is character that is precious. The outward adornment is not denounced as evil. It is merely of lesser value, effectively valueless, when set aside the character that God deems precious. It’s rather like Paul’s assessment of the trials of life. These light and temporary afflictions are producing so great a weight of glory for us in eternity as to defy any comparison (2Co 4:17). It’s not that afflictions don’t affect us. It’s not that we feel no pain in our suffering. The simple point is that compared to what is stored up for us in heaven, which is only increased by our righteous sorrows in this life, the seemingly weighty troubles of the day fade to naught. The old question, “what will this matter in a thousand years?” sets things in proper perspective. For the answer, with very few exceptions, and none of them found in sorrow itself, is “not one whit.”
But, we discuss a foundation. If God so values this woman He has set at your side, what ought to be your own valuation of her? She may be weaker, true. But, we are not in physical competition with our wives. We ought not to be, certainly. No. The proper measure is this: She is your co-heir, your equal in God’s sight. And He considers her to be of surpassing value. In like fashion, O husband, consider that He considers you to be of surpassing value. Think, after all, of how great a price He paid to have you in His family. That same price was paid for your bride. So, then, grant her honor. Esteem her as precious to you. She is! She is your helpmate. It was ever so, from the first couple in Eden.
Reverence her. Isn’t that something? The same as she was given to do for you, you are given to do for her. But, we put in that term of reverence and something sticks in us. Surely, reverence is to be reserved for God alone! Well, yes. Inasmuch as we are to have no god before or even beside Him, it is. But, that does not remove the propriety of giving honor where honor is due. And, honor is due, in measure, to every bearer of His image, for all life is sacred. It is due in greater measure to that believing partner He has given you for life, for this life. Value her as God values her, and see that God values her highly indeed. Whatever comparison you may make in the fields of physical or intellectual prowess, they really don’t count here. She may be weaker. She may be stronger. She doubtless has particular talents that complement your own weak spots. But, in God’s valuation? Precious! Of surpassing value! Just like you. For, you are co-heirs. You are equals in His sight.
You see, honor and care is to be bidirectional in this relationship. God does not love you and demand only respect in return, O bride of Christ. No! The chief commandment is to love Him with all that you are. That will necessarily include respect, for we can hardly love what we don’t respect, can we? Neither, in more than surface measure, can we respect that which we don’t love.
When you consider your spouse, are you enchanted by their appearance? Likely so. If you were to assess their appearances by comparison to others, would you still count them, “the most beautiful of all”? Unlikely. One can always find a finer physical specimen. But, it is character that counts, not appearance. Beauty, as the camera captures it, is indeed only skin deep. But, it is a shallow person indeed whose measure of beauty is that of the camera. True beauty is far and away deeper than that. True love is far and away more intrigued by the inner world of love’s object.
If our love for our spouse begins and ends with his or her appearance, then the unopposable forces of time will surely erode our love until nothing is left. Where our love is real, though? That youthful beauty will still be in our eyes when age has long since erased it. We will look upon the greying hair and the skin etched with time seeing the same person we were entranced by so long ago. I see this happening. My beloved wife supposes her hair to be greying, yet I see only the same tri-color gold I saw when we first met. I still see that beautiful head with the sunset behind, capturing and echoing the full color of so glorious a display. She is still the bride of my youth, and doubtless ever shall be.
Slowly, we have learned to love one another as we ought. We have not moved beyond the passion of youth, such that passion has no part with us any longer. May it never be! But, passion has found a deeper well from which to drink. We speak of the Gospel has offering us so deep a well of wisdom as to keep us busy however long we may live. Here, then, is a great mystery. In our spouse, the well is just as deep. There are endless mysteries in a woman, in a man. There are inner chambers we may not discover for years. And then, upon discovery, we find a whole new trove of treasures have been given us. Value her highly? I doubt I could ever value her highly enough. And yet, she becomes more valuable to me every day.
Here is a woman who, though in so many ways different from me – some days it seems like in every way different from me – sets before me a gem of surpassing beauty as she pursues her path with God. Here is a woman who has just departed the house to reach out to the homeless. Here is a woman with such a heart for the lost as threatens to be broken a thousand times a day. Yet, in the breaking she becomes only more solid, more complete, more beautiful. Here is a woman who is ever concerned with her family, ever concerned with God, ever concerned with as much of humanity as she can embrace; constantly checking as to the balance of her priorities, ever concerned that perhaps in giving so much here, she is shortchanging there. And I am challenged. I am challenged to love as I am loved, to respect as I am respected. I am challenged to so honor her as to be worthy of her honor.
If it seems to you that I sing a paean of excessive nature, I can only hope for you that you will find in your life one who prompts paeans of equal excess. If it strikes you as unseemly, as if I have raised my beloved above my God, I tell you it is not so at all. I have only begun to learn how to value her as He does. I have only begun to sing over her as He does. I have only (and how cheap it feels considered this way) been loving myself. I say that sounds cheap, and yet, I but echo Paul’s assessment of the proper relationship for husband and wife. And, I dare say it is not merely Paul’s assessment, but God’s. The two shall become one flesh. They shall cleave one to another. I cannot tell you with sufficiently detailed words and pictures just how beautiful a thing it is as we two, very different people, become so surprisingly one. No, neither has become lost in the other. I still have my ways and she has hers. But, at the same time, I discover certain of her ways becoming mine, and certain of mine becoming hers. Our tastes in many things are unlikely to ever come into any sort of perfect alignment. But, they expand. They sample. They find new cause for delight. Ah! I could write forever of this marvelous work the Lord has done in us. And yet, I know that as special as it is to us, it is nothing so special. It is the same work He does in every marriage that will grant Him room to work. It is the miracle of character, that most precious jewel that God Himself is polishing within us.
Now: Were this life of wonderful fellowship with one woman all that came of marriage, I should be a man surpassingly content. But, that is not the end of it! It is but the beginning. I must, I suppose, back up one step. For it is not the case that Peter addresses solely those marriages which consist of two believing partners. Indeed, he explicitly addresses the divided household first. While she might debate the point, I will maintain that for the first year or so of our marriage, this is exactly what we were – a divided household. She had returned to a particularly strong faith in Christ, would have nothing to do with marrying an unbeliever. I, an unbeliever, found belief a fairly easy thing to fake for the hour or two that church required of me. And, in my thinking, if this was the price of marrying so fine a specimen, so be it. I can deal.
I am coming to the purpose God has set before us in this effort at character under fire in the marriage relationship. It’s right there in Peter’s opening point. “They may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives.” Be certain that the corollary holds. If, o man, you have come to faith but your wife remains in this disobedient, unbelieving condition, she is unlikely to be won over by demands of external adherence. Preaching at her day and night, begging and pleading for belief is not likely to bring belief into flower. It may. Don’t get me wrong. God appointed preachers. I do not, however, see that He appointed them in the bedroom or the kitchen or the living room. He appointed them for the community of the faithful, for the public proclamation of God’s great good news. But, the goal, it seems to me, is to gain the right of a more personal hearing.
Some will speak of earning the right to speak into another’s life. That’s probably a tad too Christianese in nature to be of much use in explaining the concept to one who doesn’t already have it. But, it is our example, our demonstrated character, that often gives the first and greatest evidence that there is something to this God business. It will hold particularly true where we are amongst those who knew us before God got hold of us. Nowhere can that possibly be more true than in the marriage relationship. Here is one who knows us better, perhaps, than we know ourselves. Here is one who knows our every failing. It may well be that our every failing has been paraded before us on a regular basis. But, what must be the impact when things begin to change? What must be the impact when that list of failings is growing daily shorter? When the book our spouse has been keeping is having pages erased instead of added?
Something’s happening here, and it cannot be denied. Words can be disbelieved. The best-formed arguments of the sharpest mind can fall on deaf ears. But, a life transformed cuts through all that. It stands there for all to see. I think about the reaction of the Sanhedrin reacting to the miracles Jesus was performing. They could try and denounce the acts as somehow the product of deviltry, but they could hardly go off claiming the thing had never happened. Lazarus was walking the streets, and some of the very cream of society had been out to comfort his siblings at their loss. Too many folks knew he had been in the grave. Too many knew he had been there long enough to remove any doubt as to whether he was good and truly dead. The evidence cannot be denied.
The evidence of God’s work in us, if indeed He is at work in us, cannot be denied. There will be change. The fruit of the Spirit will be coming into evidence. The shift in character will be obvious. I tell you this is so however much we may seek to keep it to ourselves. It’s not that we emerge from the baptismal waters perfected. Hardly that! In fact, it may be the most counterproductive thing a believer could do, if he should promote himself as having arrived at a place of true purity. Those who preach a perfection of purity likewise do great disservice to their flocks, setting before them an impossible standard and claiming it is made possible. No! Righteousness is made possible in Christ. It is made possible for the simple reason that the court of God has proclaimed our debt paid, and our status before the court as justified, in right standing. But, the flesh remains, and with it the weakness of the flesh. The battle continues so long as fleshly life persists. When we see Him face to face? Ah! That’s a different story. Then, we shall be made as He is. Then shall every sorrow be washed away, every temptation robbed not only of its force, but even of its opportunity. Until then, we labor. Until then, we remain works in progress. But, if there is no progress whatsoever, one must question whether there is any work going on.
Here is another purpose, another encouragement for us to pursue the wedded state as God would have it pursued. Paul is giving advice to his young coworker Titus. Titus has been given the duty of putting the church in Crete on solid footing, a particularly challenging task, given the nature of the Cretans. As he turns to what should be the women of the congregation, he speaks first of the older women in the church. Once again, the first call is to reverence. But, as he continues down the list of instructions, he arrives at this: they should “teach what is good” (Ti 2:3). And, who are they to teach? The younger women. What shall they teach? That they ought to love their husbands and children; that they should be sensible, pure, and kind; that they should work in the home, in subjection to their husbands (Ti 2:4-5). Oh, dear. There it is again, that subjection business. Seems like we ought to get the point, no?
But, I am keen on the reason given. All of this instruction is not so that there may be marital bliss. It’s not given with an eye to personal relationships at all, really. It is for a much greater purpose: “That the word of God may not be dishonored” (Ti 2:5b). That’s really it in a nutshell. Indeed, this concern, this purpose, ought to be at the forefront of our thought in all we do. In every interaction we have with people, we should take care that nothing in our words, our thinking or our example gives cause for God’s word to be dishonored. Quite the contrary! We ought to be striving to ensure that every aspect of our lives, whether public or entirely private, is such as brings honor to the Word of God. We are walking epistles. We are, to borrow the well-worn phrase, all the Jesus some people will ever see. We are ambassadors of Christ Himself. How conscious do we remain of this point as we go about our day? How conscious ought we to remain?
The fundamental lesson here is that true beauty lies inward. We are in the midst of a culture absolutely consumed with looking good. We have men who spend nearly as much time, money and effort on their looks as do women. We have churches filled with people trying to put up a good front. We live amongst millions of folks who are about as real as a Hollywood sound stage. All front and no substance. It’s the product of the society we have built. Sadly, it’s an aspect of society that we have adopted into worship. It is somehow unseemly in our eyes to give honest expression to what we’re feeling, what we’re dealing with, when we’re in the house of God. It’s as though our sorrows are somehow bad advertising for Him. As if He needs advertising.
We have gotten it into our heads that to speak truly of our lives would damage the Gospel message. In truth, our insistence on stating that things are other than they obviously are does great damage to the God Who Is Truth. How can it be that we have decided a God of Truth wants us to lie, lest His reputation be tarnished by reality? Seriously? Can we not see the utter foolishness, the outright evil, of this? No. God does not call upon us to deny the realities of this life. He calls us to look beyond them, to persevere, to keep our eyes on that heavenly treasure Paul drew our attention to. He calls us to do good no matter what, to buck up, to insist on doing what is right whatever the consequences. Surely, to speak the Truth in Love is right.
[12/28/13] It may seem from the glowing words I have for my beloved wife that I am right where I should be in my love for her. In reality, though, Peter’s words present me with a very specific challenge and show me right where I fall short. You see, when he speaks of the wife as fellow heir, or more properly co-heir, he indicates a personal equality in the most critical aspect of being: spiritual life. She shares the same lot as I received. We are equal in God’s sight. I may have what I see as a stronger grip on theology and doctrine. On the other hand, she may have what she sees as a stronger grip on faith applied. I suspect we are both right in our comparative assessments. I suspect we are both wrong in the conclusions we draw from those assessments.
This is a great challenge for me, a point where I am in need of much growth. An honest assessment of how I respond to her in matters of faith must show that I do not always demonstrate that I consider her my equal. Our views are often very different. She is strongly inclined towards the Charismatic perspective, and I am inclined to prefer that perspective to be more subdued. If I measure by the fruits produced, I cannot but confess a power at work in her. I cannot deny that she is doing the work of the kingdom in far more direct and consistent fashion than I am.
In truth, I find myself deeply concerned over much of what she pursues as teaching. I hear things that smack of heresy from my perspective. I hear things that I would go so far as to say are clearly heretical, repeating the same sorts of teachings that the Apostles and the early fathers of the faith were at great pains to reject. This necessarily leads to conflict, for I cannot in good faith allow such things to be allowed free rein. I am, like it or not, for better or for worse, set as spiritual head over this household. She is my primary sheep if indeed I am an undershepherd of my Lord. There are occasions in which error must be countered by truth. And it is never a comfortable duty.
With that said, though, there is a danger to which I too often fall prey, which is that of taking these attractions to such teachings as indicating a more general untrustworthiness in matters of faith. Let me look again at Peter’s admonition here. “Live with here as with a weaker vessel.” This is not a matter of physical strength. It is not even an assessment of mental power. It may very well be that we are to hear it as primarily addressing spiritual matters.
I can look once again at the comparative nature of man and woman; of the woman’s proclivity for emotion versus man’s proclivity for cold calculation. Again, generalizations. But, generalizations come about because they reflect general truisms. She is, perhaps, the more likely to be intrigued by the sorts of teachers that make me cringe. She is less likely to make a critical assessment of the message. I am more inclined to hear with an ear for what aligns with what is to me settled doctrine. We have very different approaches. This holds true with or without the generalizations.
Let me set out the example of working a puzzle, a thing we are doing at present, as we tend to every Christmas break. Our approach to puzzles is very different indeed. I am looking for patterns, noting clues in the colors, the shape of the edges. I am inclined to sort out the pieces before really going after the picture itself, piling like with like. When facing expanses with minimal distinguishing features, I may even go so far as to lay out the pieces so that they are properly oriented as best as can be determined, or perhaps to set them out based on knobs versus notches. What can I say? I am an engineer by habit of nature more than by training.
She, on the other hand, may simply pick up a piece and try it every which way. To me, one glance suffices to make plain that it has no business in the suggested location. But, she doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, she may have a piece that she just can’t find the right location for, while I will look at it and know immediately: It goes right here.
Is one approach right and the other wrong? Well, both succeed in getting the puzzle done. Were she to attempt the puzzle by my methods, she would soon become bored, frustrated and disillusioned. Were I to adopt her methods, I should be utterly discomfited. But, does that prove my ways are better? Her ways are better? From my perspective, it is obvious that my ways are better. But, the best way is, to a point, the way that works.
Can I take that same perspective and apply it to the life of faith? Again, to a point. There are lines we ought not, must not cross. God is Truth. To pursue the Truth by way of a lie is not only impossible, it is sinful, and results in a grossly false representation of the God Who Is. There I dare not go, and there I may not allow my beloved to go. But, if she feels the need to pray in tongues over everything and anything, is that a crime against heaven? I think not. If she finds the blowing of a ram’s horn spiritually significant, does this do harm to God’s image? So long as it is not blown in rebellion, I think not. It may seem silly to me, but who am I to judge my Master’s servant? This is not my call. My call is to cherish, to protect, to correct when necessary. And, let me stress, only when necessary.
As to the rest, she is my helpmate. That’s not a matter of housekeeping. That’s not the way she makes certain I remember to eat my lunch when I get lost in my work. It’s not that she reminds me to step away from the screens and take a walk now and then. No, if she is my helpmate, it is first and foremost in this journey of faith. She has wisdom to offer. It may sound odd to my ears. It may be orthogonal to my way of seeing things. But, then, so must my views seem to her on many an occasion. I am set as shepherd, but that does not indicate that my sheep have no capacity to speak into my life. No, she is not my inferior. She is my equal, my co-heir. She is my balance.
We speak of this often, in other regards. For years after we were married, if asked what attracted us to each other, neither of us could really give an answer beyond, “I don’t know.” We are so very different, always have been. She is an extrovert, I am an introvert. She is inclined to action, I to contemplation. She is direct, I tend to keep my own counsel.
Yet, it is very clearly the case that I have grave difficulty accepting spiritual counsel from her. Why? Well, in part because her counsel tends to come on points where I need correction, and correction, while most needful, is almost never welcome. I am looking for reasons not to hear. So I look at what I see as her relative weaknesses. What does she know of sound doctrine? Look at the stuff she swallows. And I’m going to take counsel from that? But, here it is set before me: She is my co-heir, my helpmate, my equal. Be we ever so different, yet we are one. If she is my balance, and to be sure, she is, then I do well to listen. That is not to say that I must needs accept everything she suggests blindly. I would not do so for my pastor, why would I suppose I ought do so for her? If I am wise, I don’t even do that for myself! Test, test, test. But, to reject out of hand is equally foolish. She is a godly woman. There can be no doubting that. If, then, I accede to the clear fact that she knows God and God knows and loves her, on what basis would I suppose it unlikely that He might speak into my life through her? It is most foolish on my part.
Here, let me consider another piece of Peter’s message to me. “You husbands, give thought to your way of life with your wives.” Thus, the BBE. Or, as Wuest offers it, “be governed by the dictates of knowledge.” Isn’t that something? Knowledge dictates that God has set this coheir at my side that we both may benefit. Knowledge dictates that a woman after God’s own heart is very likely to offer advice from God’s own heart. Wisdom requires that I give thought to that when she speaks. Weaker vessel? Yes. As such, to be cherished and cared for all the more. But, never can that be thought a reasonable excuse to discount or ignore her words and her wisdom.
At the same time, I remain mindful of Paul’s instruction to me. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church, giving Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). Therein lies a call to protect to the uttermost. If she is setting herself on course for peril, it is my calling to lay myself across her path, even at pain of death. I may not leave her to wander down every path that catches her fancy. If it is a path that diverges from the Way, I am required by my Lord and King to haul her back in, set her back in the right direction; holler warnings at the top of my lungs and point out the myriad dangers that surround. But, here’s the thing: I am just as inclined to wander. I am just as capable of walking blithely into mortal peril. And there she is, calling me back. Am I so stupid as to block my ears? Sadly, the answer is often, yes.
Lord, here is a matter for much prayer. I noted it at the outset, as I prepared my thoughts for this passage, and it still stands as a place of greatest need. However highly I value the wife You have blessed me with, I have not honored her as my equal in grace. There have been seasons when I thought her so far beyond me in grace as to be unbroachable, beyond my capacity to question or correct. Now, it seems the balance has swung the other way, and I find her utterly questionable. Yet, this is as wrong as that. She is my equal in grace. Your work in her may seem strange and even suspect in my eyes, but what are my eyes? She is Your work, just as I am. She is Your servant, just as I am. Grant me, Father, the grace to recognize her grace, to honor her grace, to see and hear You in her. God, I cannot thank You enough for this partner You created for me. How blessed I am. How I marvel at Your providence. We may not know why we were attracted to one another, but You knew. You knew from all eternity that we were exactly who we needed. Forgive me, Father, for failing to see this more clearly. Forgive me for seeing it and failing to assess and act according to the wisdom You give me. Teach me how to honor my coheir as I ought, how to lead while still able to learn, how to cherish as well as protect.
Finally, on this topic, I would turn to the end of verse 7. Peter gives us cause to consider his words carefully in setting a most self-serving point before us. “So that your prayers may not be hindered.” Hindered, I suspect, is too soft a word here. The underlying Greek, enkoptesthai, takes on the idea of cutting off. There is a root here that speaks of chopping. It is used to describe the beating of the breast that may accompany heart-wrenching sorrow, as at the death of a loved one. But, in this application: Cut off. Never mind impeding one’s course, and forcing one to find a way around. No, this is straight out cut off: No way through, dead end. Are the skies like brass when I pray? Do I perceive no answer? Do I feel as though my prayers are in vain? Well, here’s an immediate point to consider: Am I treating my coheir as my equal? Am I belittling her faith because it develops differently from my own? Do I, by word or by reaction, demean her spiritual development? I know the answer is too often yes. I am called to reassess. She does not deserve this. If there is cause for correction, then correct. Correct in truth. But, correct in love. Consider how to bring about positive development rather than bearing the club of demanded change.
Change that is coerced is no change. It is the cringing of a beaten domestic. There is a better way. But, it is a way rarely found in the heat of the moment. It must allow for cooler heads to prevail, for my own hot head to be calmed. It must present the Truth as a thing of beauty, not a weapon of debate. It must present care not command. Too often, in these situations, I opt for command. You must obey. I am the husband! But, that is wholly at odds with the command I have been given.
God help me to lead as You lead, to love as You love, to shepherd as You shepherd. Let my concern never cause love to become mean. Let my sense of danger never again cause me to demean the one I love, to belittle her great spiritual value, to crush her beautiful spirit. Teach me, Lord, how to lead with honor for the led.
There is one further aspect of this passage I would consider. It is one I rather doubt that Peter had in view as he wrote, and yet, it strikes me most powerfully. Peter is addressing the matter of husbands and wives. If I were to consider that in light of the type/antitype nature of Scripture; if I contemplate this instruction with an eye to God’s purposes in instituting the covenantal relationship of marriage, what do I see?
There is a clear picture painted in Scripture, of marriage as type for our relationship to God Himself. Throughout the text, we see the people of God depicted as the bride of God. Israel’s prophets often admonished them in these terms, pointing out how God’s bride had been wayward in her ways, lying with any strange man who happened by, seeking out opportunities to be unfaithful to her husband. Things have not changed very much with His New Covenant people. We are still painfully inclined to chase after others, to seek some sort of instant gratification, some new thrill.
Come to the New Testament, and much that was only hinted at in the Old is made explicit. There is that feast which the Old Testament prophets saw lying ahead. Now, we learn it is a wedding feast. Not only that, it is our wedding feast. We are the bride and Christ Jesus is our groom. Consider the immediate implication of that point. By the nature of marriage such as it was practiced in that time, we are engaged, betrothed. We are like Mary to Joseph. The covenant of marriage is already binding although we have yet to consummate the marriage. We are a bride in waiting, as our Groom prepares a house for us.
He is preparing a house for us. It is for that purpose that He returned home, as He has told us. The groom could not take his bride until he had established his ability to provide for her. God has provided for us marvelously, but there remains that preparation in heaven. He has gone to provide. He will come for us when His provision is made complete. To be sure, its completion is a foregone conclusion. When He said, “It is finished!” He meant just that. But, there remains a perfection of the times, a perfection of the bride.
So, then, we have our Groom in heaven, our Husband. There will come the wedding feast and the finalization of our marriage, but we are already covenant bound to Him Who will not divorce us. Think of Joseph’s example now. He considered it, but God Himself said by no means divorce this woman. Here, too, is a type set for our contemplation. But, to the passage at hand…
Here is instruction for the bride. I asked, towards the outset of this passage, why it was that so much of the instruction given on this topic is aimed at the bride and so little at the husband. Perhaps we arrive at an answer now. We are the bride, even we who have the role of husband at present. The instruction to the bride, the wife, apply to all who are the called. We are all of us the bride of Christ, singly and collectively. As such, all of this instruction applies to us.
We are called to submit to our Husband. Now, there is not the slightest possibility of Him being disobedient to the word, for that would require Him to be disobedient to Himself, an impossibility if ever there was one. But, the greater concern here is for us. We submit. We keep ourselves chaste and reverent towards Him. Again, I must balance the point. If it is only we, then we shall never succeed in this. So, more properly, we might say He is making us chaste and reverent.
Therein lies a bit of paradox, doesn’t there? In the physical world, it would be impossible to be made chaste. One has either remained chaste throughout, or one is unchaste. There’s no going back. But, God is God of the impossible! The word loses all meaning in His presence. It has no application. He, and He alone, is able to make chaste that which is not. If He can create a universe ex nihilo, out of nothing, then surely He can bring into a being a chastity that has no being at present.
So, bride of Christ, be made chaste by Him. Be in reverent awe of Him Who has declared Himself for you. So, bride of Christ, don’t settle for external masks of beauty. Concentrate on that inward beauty that never fades, never wears out, never dies. A gentle and quiet spirit: It’s not just for women. It’s for all who would be His.
The call to do what is right without fear for anything? That’s our call. Let me offer this perspective on the point. If we are doing right out of fear; if we obey only as a means of appeasing God and avoiding being struck dead, then we are not yet doing what is right. We are acting as if God is one of those myriad idols the ancients served. Why serve a Dagon, or an Ashtaroth, or – God forbid! – a Moloch? It’s out of fear. If we don’t give the idol what it wants, bad things may happen. Crops could fail, the womb be sealed. God is not like this. He does not demand works from us lest He strike us dead. He demonstrates His love for us, that we might love Him.
He is our Groom, not our Tyrant. He is King, but He is Husband. He hates sin with an absolute and unquenchable hatred. But, He does not therefore erase us from existence. No! He loves us too much for that. “How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I surrender you, O Israel?” “My heart is turned over with in Me. All My compassions are kindled” (Hos 11:8). Here is the prophet who most clearly sets our relationship to God before us, and hear God’s words! He will not give up on us. No! Rather than erase us from existence, He chooses to erase sin from us! Rather than condemn us for our filth, He chooses to remove our filth that His love may rest more fully upon us. All of His compassions are kindled towards you and me!
This is the great Good News of the Gospel! God so loved the world that He gave His Son, His only Son. The Lamb Who was slain is the Lamb to Whom we are wed. And the marriage feast lies yet ahead. He was slain, yet He lives. He was sacrificed for our sins, yet He rose again. He went home to heaven, yet He will return. His bride awaits, and He will not be denied. In the meantime, O bride of Christ, heed well the instructions He has left. And, as you look to the instructions given to husbands consider well that He is describing His own care and treatment of you!
Think about that for just a moment, as I draw to a close here. Jesus, the Lord of heaven and earth, looks upon you and me as His co-heirs, His equals in grace! God does not look down on you! This is a marvel beyond full comprehension. I think this is what David sensed when he wrote his words. “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that You have brought me thus far” (2Sa 7:18)? “What is man, that You give him any thought? What is the son of man, that You should care for him? Yet, You made him but a little lower than Yourself, and crown him with glory and majesty” (Ps 8:4-5)! What is man? Man is the bride of Christ! Man is the apple of His eye! As the kingdom is the pearl of greatest price to man, so man is, after his fashion, a pearl of greatest price to God. If that is insufficient to humble your hearts, then your hearts are cold indeed.
