New Thoughts (10/02/14-10/5/14,10/10/14-10/15/14)
The Gospel of Character (10/04/14)
Should anybody take note of certain gaps in the dates in the preceding study and those going forward, I am finding it necessary to set Peter aside on occasion that I may better prepare to teach on Genesis. That class is proving more challenging than I anticipated (and I anticipated that it would be challenging). There is much more material to cover each week, and the significance of the content requires a good deal of study to draw out. So, rather than overburdening myself with dead works, I am alternating between Peter on weeks I don’t teach and Genesis on weeks when I do. One particular bit of serendipity about all this is that I find myself in this section with Sarah’s example brought forth right in the midst of covering that section of Genesis which relates her history.
As concerns this passage, it has its challenges for us. One major challenge lies in the fact that we deal with so many claims of misogyny in current society, and many will look at instruction such as this as horribly imbalanced, even finding it sufficient cause to discount Christianity more generally. Look what they teach! What manner of God would promote this sort of behavior? But, as we shall see, their assessment is entirely incorrect, based solely upon a surface reading. For my part, I find that while the first six verses here are directed to wives, they are to be taken as more general instruction.
Note the bracketing term, ‘Likewise’. This is not just an oratorical tic of some sort. It is purposeful. In turning from the situation of the domestic to the situation of the wife, Peter’s point is: What I just said to them applies to you. He then turns to some specifics of how these instructions play out in that particular relationship. Again, turning from wife to husband, we get the same message. “Likewise, husband…” Everything you have heard thus far, both with regard to the domestic’s relation to his or her master and the wife’s relation to her husband, applies to your case as well. Indeed, there can be no doubt that had Peter chosen to address masters in this letter, they would get the same message. The basics of Christian relationship, the way we deal with our fellow man, whether believer or non-believer, do not change and they do not vary based on our circumstance. The summation of the Law as concerns our dealings with man comes to this: “The second table of the Law, and any other commandment, is summed up in saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Ro 13:9).
We may find this as an adjunct to the evangelical call of Romans 10:14, with its insistence that we must go forth and preach in order that those neighbors might believe. And to be sure, there are those who will quibble with that advice of Francis of Assisi, “Preach always, and if you must, use words.” But, here in Peter we are seeing what could be construed as that very advice. Let your character and your bearing before this unbelieving spouse of yours be such that, “they may be won without a word” (v1). Now, we can argue that Peter’s point is a matter of preparatory effort only, and not touching on the actual point of conversion, but that comes very near to reading one’s favored views into the text.
What seems clearly to be addressed here is the fact that there are those who are looking for any reason not to hear the Gospel. Arguably, that is the common disease of all humanity. Unless and until God sovereignly chooses to unplug the ear, we not only don’t hear, we don’t want to hear. We have fingers firmly implanted, and we’re chanting like willful little children, “la, la la! I can’t hear you.” Just consider how much energy is being exerted in our own day to demonstrate cause for ignoring the Christian message. It’s just one religion among many, and just look at this crazy practitioner over here! Look how they discount what we consider settled science. Look at their backward ways, how they want to drag us backward into the Stone Age.
Or, we will see particular low points in Church history brought forward as if they were the defining principles rather than sinful anomalies. Or, we will hear of the preacher who fell, or that one who insists that these awful acts of God are just that, punishment come from a vengeful God. Well, they may be right in that, but who’s going to listen to that nonsense? For all that, in their presentation, what manner of God do they present? Are they showing forth the God Who Is, or another idolatrous distortion? No, we cannot rightly present a God so meek and mild He wouldn’t harm a fly, even if that fly was sinning non-stop. But, neither can we rightly present a God so capricious in His anger as to wipe out entire populations to swat that fly. Both of these distortions give the sinner reason not to hear, and that’s just what they want.
If I don’t have to hear the Truth, I don’t have to heed the Truth. If I can ignore these ambassadors of some purported God, then their God need not have any impact on my life, and I can go on as before. But, there is Paul to confront them. “The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the Truth in unrighteousness” (Ro 1:18). To borrow the Trotskyite axiom so popular currently, “You may not be interested in God, but God is interested in you.” Truth really doesn’t hinge on your acceptance.
But all of this comes back to character. They can tune out the preacher. They can ignore your badgering words. They can throw out your pamphlets. Invite them to church and they will politely decline – or not so politely. The end result is the same. But, what they cannot do is avoid observing your example. As you live consistently before them, demonstrating the change God has wrought in your own life, refusing to rise to the bait when they seek to provoke you into betraying your principles; these things cannot be unseen once having been seen. They cannot be denied any more than the Pharisees could deny the reality of dead Lazarus walking their streets.
This is what it means to preach without words. Let your life speak the Gospel. Indeed, if your life does not speak the Gospel, then all the words you can muster will avail nothing whatsoever. There is a reason we all know the phrase, “Actions speak louder than words.” It’s because we all know it to be true. The parent who attempts to raise a child to, “Do as I say, not as I do” is doomed to failure. The leader who will not act according to his own dictates will soon find he has nobody to lead. Character counts. Character counts far more highly than the greatest oratorical skills. Character trumps even deep knowledge of theology and doctrine. We can know very clearly what is right, and yet refuse to do what is right. But, by such exercise we will lead nobody to Christ.
This is not something that only applies to wives. Husbands are under the same instruction. Parents, I think particularly, are under the same instruction. How do you expect your children to grow up as faithful Christians, for all your berating and dragging them to church every Sunday, if you live before them as practical atheists? If they cannot see God working in you, why would you expect them to suppose God works at all?
The fact is that this advice is given in common to every believer in every relationship with any unbeliever. Act so as to win them without a word. Oh, to be sure, if opportunity opens up to share the word, then share it. But, don’t lead with it. Earn the right to a hearing. Live it first, then preach it.
One side-aspect of this message concerns the potential relationship of teacher and student, where that student is of the opposite sex. Now, given the admonitions of Scripture against women teaching men, we may simplify the equation to address men teaching women. The JFB makes particular note of this situation, noting that Peter specifically instructs the wife to be submissive ‘to your own husband’. That relationship is special. It does not apply between you and some other teacher. This would be particularly important to say to the wife of an unbelieving husband. She cannot go to him for explanation of what she has heard in the sermon. He didn’t hear it, and wouldn’t speak of it if he had. So, she must go to another teacher if she is to learn more.
But, here there is a boundary set, and I dare say it is set more firmly upon the teacher than upon the student. Consider that particular relationship that pertains between a disciple and his teacher, his master. Note that there is that same aspect to the relationship of the one submitting to the other. It was there in the example of the apostles under Jesus’ ministry, and it was there in the standard social contract between Rabbi and student. It was there, I think, in the Greek model as well. You are submitting to this one as having right to direct your way of living, thinking, speaking. You are submitting yourself to this one as your authority. And, Peter says, “Not so!” Be careful.
As I say, the JFB pulls this point forward, and in doing so, they leave the situation in stark terms so as to accentuate the danger. If attachment forms between a woman and her teacher, they note, even if it does not proceed to outright adultery it yet weakens the spiritual basis of the marriage. Given Jesus’ instruction on this, “Everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery already” (Mt 5:28), does that not apply here? You may not be looking upon the woman in terms of sexual appetites. But, you are acting in a fashion reserved for her husband, taking upon yourself his prerogatives, and does this not amount to the same?
There is more reason for taking great care in how one instructs and shepherds the opposite sex than safeguarding against sexual misconduct. That is but the final outgrowth of what has been misconduct long since. And, to be very clear, the danger runs in both directions. In those denominations that allow that a woman may be teaching a man, the same risk applies, that she will take upon herself spiritual and relational prerogatives rightly reserved to that man’s wife.
It may seem ever so innocent. No doubt it will, for what sin could attract the believer which demonstrated itself as blatantly sinful at the outset? But, it is not innocent. It is destructive in the extreme, and that destruction is aimed directly at the root of an institution dear indeed to God: that of holy matrimony. Let us, then, who teach, take care that we allow no such corruption of God’s purpose to enter into our labors.
Normative Economy (10/05/14)
The opening exhortation of this passage seems so clearly to indicate a path to salvation that is other than by preaching. They may be won without a word. How else are we to hear this? I have already explored this point somewhat, but I cannot help but hear the wisdom of this instruction. Don’t make their lives miserable by constant, nagging preachiness. Live it! Just live it.
While it is not in the relationship of husband and wife, I can say that I see this dynamic clearly displayed in my daughter. In her present state of life, she wants nothing to do with the God Who Is. That is, of course, not the determining factor. The question is whether God wants anything to do with her. But, here’s the thing: She will come for advice, or to discuss events in her life, and praise God, she is aware that her parents have some wisdom to offer and she seeks that wisdom. But, she has been ‘preached at’ so often that the moment God’s name enters the conversation she shuts it down. “You’re preaching at me!” Now, part of me rises up – not the better part – and says, “Of course I am! You want my advice, and this is my advice. You knew it would be, so if you didn’t want to hear it, why did you ask?” But, the thing is, I can offer the same godly advice while leaving the source assumed and gain a hearing. Which is the better way?
I can see arguments on both sides. Am I ashamed of the Gospel, that I don’t profess my source? Or, am I obeying the Gospel by seeking to till the ground with obedience and wisdom? I have to say that the effectiveness of this method, from the kingdom perspective, must depend upon the consistency of my example. Words alone, even the truest of words, will avail nothing if my life gives no evidence of being impacted by Truth.
In fairness, I think this really is a great part of the Church’s problem with evangelism. It is all well and good to have evangelistic outreaches, to take to the streets and talk to folks about Jesus, or to hand out tracts left and right. But, there are at least two problems here. The first is that those we are trying to reach have seen plenty of what passes itself off as Christianity, and they have seen plentiful examples of purported Christians who live like pagans. We can defend ourselves and note that their charges of hypocrisy are based on faulty understanding, but quite frankly, I think that defense is pretty questionable. Yes, there are none to be found amongst our number who have attained to a perfect walk, and yet there are many who are wholly in earnest about following Jesus and living according to His ways as best they can. If these are the ones from whom the opinion has been formed, then the defense is just. But, there are far more in the house who are there for show. They have a form of godliness but deny its power (2Ti 3:5). They talk a good game, but the slightest glance at their private lives, or even their public lives when they think themselves out of sight of their church friends, and what do our lost ones see? They see somebody who is not only no better than they are, but quite possibly worse.
The point is that these folks need more than a message. They need an example that the message has value. We advertise this life, but if they cannot see this life lived out and cannot see that the message we bear is able to change a person for the better, why should they listen? In Peter’s time, the greater challenges came from current and competing religious commitments as well as political pressure from Rome. To become a Christian was to defy Rome, and to insult the local gods, both of which were likely to have grave consequences. This new religion had better have something more powerful to offer than a dead, crucified figurehead. No amount of preaching about Him would alter the perspective. It needed living examples, and that is what we are called to be.
In our day, has anything changed regarding the risks? Locally, I don’t think we are yet at the point where confessing Christ could lead to incarceration or forfeiture of property. I’m not sure we’re so very far from it. There are certainly matters of doctrine which, if proclaimed loudly in public, would be of consequence. Let the preacher denounce the sins of a candidate, and you can bet there will be some repercussions. Let the sins of sexual immorality be declaimed against from the pulpit and this promiscuous society will shout you down like the folks of Sodom sought to eradicate Lot for his presumption to speak.
If preaching is going to change this, it will only be by the spectacular intervention of God. That is not to be discounted, by any stretch! Quite frankly, anything that pertains to bringing the lost into the light of salvation is only going to happen by the intervention of God, and history has plentiful evidence of just such spectacular interventions, even right here in New England. But, the question at hand is this: Is preaching the required component apart from which God cannot or will not save?
The foundational text for such a view is, of course, Romans 10:14-17. “How shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? How can they believe in Him if they haven’t heard of Him? How shall they hear of Him if there is no preacher?” Then, the conclusion. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Does this not lay out an unbending rule of God’s decree? Calvin would certainly hold that this is the case. He argues that we cannot take Peter’s instruction here as running counter to Paul’s. Rather, we are to take Peter’s meaning as being that their example will prepare the way for the Word, that the preaching may finally gain a hearing and have its impact. There are plenty of preachers who would hold with Calvin in this regard. Preaching is necessary, and apart from it God will not move.
For my part, I find my position a bit softer. The JFB commentary looks at this and recognizes that Peter’s instruction here is a departure from the normative course of faith arriving by hearing the word preached. That seems to me a reasonable stance, and it is one I have held for some time, much though I dislike being in disagreement with Calvin. It must be admitted that he is but a man like myself, and in the end it is not Calvin who determines true doctrine, but God.
I tend to see this as a matter of God’s sovereignty. In His sovereignty He has decreed this normative course, the normative economy of the kingdom. Here is how things typically work. You send a preacher, he preaches. God prepares the soil beforehand such that the Word takes root in those He chooses. Now, it may well be that the godly example of a spouse is the means by which he prepares the soil. But, I could also ask the question: Which comes first, the saving grace of God opening the ears to hear or the words that then enter in?
Let me also ask this. If there are regions where preacher has never been, can we really allow a view of God that says all who ever died in those regions died without a chance of heaven? Well, such a view would certainly serve to boost our missionary zeal, but it would do so, I fear, by swelling our pride. We must do it or God won’t be able to! Doesn’t that sound foolish on the face of it? But, God being sovereign, I am unwilling to suppose His hands bound by man in any fashion. We hold to this, as does Calvin, when it comes to the matter of irresistible grace. To me this is but another facet of that same grace. If it is irresistible by man it is also unstoppable by man.
This does not in any way reduce the importance of preaching. Indeed, preaching is the best means of growth when it is done right. But, it strikes me that preaching is primarily a tool of discipleship not of evangelism. Yes, I know there is a movement afoot that seeks to remove any distinction between these two facets of ministry, but I’m as yet unconvinced that the movement has it right. They are two distinct activities, as closely connected as they are. Certainly, evangelism that ignores the effort of discipling converts is an empty numbers game, and you can count on many of those who come forth to say the sinner’s prayer being gone from the church in a matter of weeks. By the same token, discipleship that does not evangelize can’t help but be seen as disobeying the main command of Christ. How can we make disciples if we are only addressing those who are already disciples?
But, which of these endeavors does preaching serve? Certainly, given our structures of church services in church buildings at set times, the opportunities for evangelism from the pulpit are few. Yes, we may bring an unbelieving relative along on the occasional Sunday. But, unless it’s a wedding or a funeral, they were likely brought along after an evangelistic effort. The ground has been prepared in advance for hearing. It seems to me that pulpit preaching is more properly aimed at discipling the existing believers and preparing them for their own efforts at ministry. That is to say that evangelism should be a major component of what we are about every day in every setting. The pulpit ministry, and other such teaching ministries of the church, are primarily geared towards equipping the saints, not trying to do their job for them.
Preaching is, then, a marvelous good for the body. And, it is a necessary adjunct to faith. How hard it must be for those who come to Christ through other means in lands where preaching is not to be had! I say then that it is possible, but I can hardly count it a desirable path to belief. God has blessed us with the reinforcement of the Word preached and lived out in fellowship. But, let us not suppose that He therefore depends upon us for saving whom He will. Let us only be faithful in doing as He has instructed and commanded, seeking to serve His will and to be wholly subjected to Him in all things. Let us be willing to speak when He says speak, but let us be diligent to live as He says to live even when we say nothing at all. Indeed, if God commands silent example, who are we to countermand His order?
Standards of Beauty (10/10/14-10/11/14)
Coming to the middle of this section we hit upon the subjects of beauty and adornment. The way these two verses (verses 3 and 4) are discussed by our commentators is in some cases surprising; certainly revealing. There is the school of thought that supposes these admonitions against external adornment are to be taken as absolutes. Thou shalt not braid. Thou shalt not wear gold. Thou shalt not wear fancy dresses. But, as one of them pointed out: If you’re going to claim an absolute regarding gold jewelry based on this passage, you’ll have to posit an absolute regarding dresses as well. After all, Peter puts no qualification as to what sort of dresses he rejects. Perhaps we must start a nudist sect? No doubt it’s been tried already.
Here is a place where Barnes and Clarke are in agreement. God likes beauty. Honestly, there can be little doubt about this. We need only look at the nature of the universe that He created. We see flowers whose beauty, while it may serve a functional purpose, yet does so with artistry. We see beauty in the detailed mosaic of a butterfly’s wing, and in the terrible majesty of the unfolding novae in space. Even the most destructive of forces demonstrate a beauty of sorts. And it plays out on the grandest and minutest of scales with equal artistry. God loves beauty. Here’s where Peter is taking us though: God likes beauty best when the outward display represents and accords with the inward state. Clarke brings this point forward for us. It reminds me of the definition given for Truth. Truth, alethes, has the literal sense of ‘not concealing’. It is a display not intended to hide reality but rather to represent it. Is it any wonder, then, that God looks upon such display and says, “This is good”?
So, then: If beauty is to be commended so long as it represents the real person, what is the issue here? Calvin would tell us that the issue is decency. He will build from that point to tell us that decency requires both modesty and moderation. I’m not at all certain I can follow him to this conclusion. Certainly, as concerns our attire, there is a place for these concerns. But, does this constitute our definition of beauty in every respect? I’ve heard the case made before. I think it was probably Francis Schaeffer, maybe R.C. Sproul. There is that within the craft of music which is beautiful in form. There is that which is intentionally dissonant and this, while perhaps interesting, cannot properly be said to be beautiful. There is also that within the craft which tends towards complexity. We can consider those musicians whose skills are technically brilliant yet which fall upon our ears as cold, soulless sounds. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those whose techniques border on the mundane yet whose delivery moves us as no other medium.
The same can be said for painting and related arts. A Picasso may have a certain intrigue to it, but I should be hard pressed to say he has captured beauty. Likewise, and Escher may be visually provocative, but moving? Not really. Turn to a Rembrandt or a Van Dyke, though, and we see a capturing of the beauty of life, the play of color and light.
Go to literary forms and the situation is no different. There are skilled writers whose prose does nothing to move us, and relative hacks who can stir us with their uplifting descriptive phrases. Dare I say, the same can be said for the prayers of the saints. A skilled orator can declaim a prayer of finest phrasing, carefully constructed with clear theme and development and yet touch the heart of neither God nor man. Comes the simplest parishioner with heart aflame for God and his need clearly before him, and the prayer may not takes its place in our anthologies, but it will move us with its beauty. Why is that? It is because that prayer is utterly devoid of artifice. It is a clear, unconcealed expression of the heart, and that is beautiful indeed.
Now, Peter’s immediate concern here has to do with the art of apparel. To really grasp his meaning we will need to consider the societal structure of those to whom he writes. This braiding or plaiting of hair, why was it done? What were those gold ornaments about? After all, did not the women of Israel wear gold adornments as well? What’s the problem? The problem lies, as it so often does, with motive. Yes, there is surely concern that women not dress in the fashion of harlots. I’m sorry, but our present-day attitudes on this are in no wise godly. Rather, we have this new class (and I use the term loosely) of women who think they should be proud of dressing in the fashion of harlots, and ought not be afraid of anybody’s negative opinions for having done so. Why, we even have them organizing what they lovingly refer to as slut walks. But, all of this does nothing to justify their choices, and it certainly does not alter God’s standards of beauty or of attire.
Why is it that women take on these styles? It’s nothing new. Again, the plaiting of hair and weaving gold ornamentation or jewels into one’s hair was a style that originated in those same quarters. It was a harlot’s style. Why? Because it attracts the eye of man. It’s good for business. Well, reasons the otherwise sensible woman: If that’s what men want, that’s what I’ll give them, too. Maybe I can attract a husband. It’s hardly an approach likely to succeed in attracting the sort of husband one ought to desire. But, yes, it’ll catch the eye of lust.
Now, in a single woman this would be problematic enough. If you are going through life in an effort to evoke lustful thoughts in those who see you, the result can hardly come as a surprise, can it? This in no wise justifies the man for so responding, but when he responds, there is no justification for the provocateur either. Take this same ‘style’ and see it displayed by a married woman and what are we to think? Now, it may well be that in that woman’s mind she is merely competing with her fellow women. That’s already a problem, for we are not here to compete with one another in this fashion. But, add to this that she is, wittingly or not, fishing for men. Never mind whether she has a jealous husband. I dare say every husband is jealous at some level. Indeed, I should think it a rather poor husband who was not. Kept in proper bounds, this is but a reflection of man’s duty to protect his wife.
So, we come back to Calvin’s point. Decency requires modesty and moderation. Applied to this specific matter, I think I can accept that he’s on to something. More to the point, though, is this other thing he notes: The soul adorned to attract God’s eye is far to be preferred than all that finery. There it is. Whose eye are you trying to get, man’s or God’s? Are you dressing to be a people-pleaser, or are you dressing to honor God? Add this to the previous point of outward form reflecting inward reality. Do your choices in attire reflect worship that is in Spirit and in Truth?
If we would give thought to our attire, that is surely the guiding principle. What defines proper adornment? Who sets the standards? Is it really a question of what the various fashion houses have proclaimed marvelous this month? Seriously? Look at some of their stylish creations, and one wonders on what planet these creations are truly seen as stylish. Look around you today and you cannot help but conclude that ugly is in. Is this where we take our cue?
The JFB concludes that it is not the style that is condemned, but the pride. We do well to contemplate that point. I think this applies particularly to our consideration of how we present ourselves when we come to the house of the Lord. I know this is a contentious point for many. So, let’s lay down a foundation: Our choice of clothing of a Sunday is not a competition. If we are dressing to be seen, we have missed the point, and pride is at our door with a battering ram. On the other hand, if we pay less heed to how we look for our Lord than we would for our date, what does that say about us? Is it so terrible a thing for us (and now I speak to men) to make a bit of effort? Are dress pants and a neat shirt so much to ask? Would a tie really be our undoing?
Now, I can accept that there are arguments to the contrary. There are those who simply cannot afford such attire and would therefore not wear it for any occasion. We do not wish to make them feel conspicuous in their lack. I wonder, though, how many of even these would find a way to dress properly for the funeral of a friend, or for their child’s wedding? I bet they’d find a way. Do I become too legalistic? I hope not! I do, though, contend that we ought to consider what our choices say about us.
By all means come as you are. But, come with your best offering. I don’t say that we should each don our most expensive attire for the occasion, but surely we could at least skip past the ripped jeans and untucked shirts. Surely, if we own such a thing, we could accept a tie and jacket? I think about that trip a few summers back, where the dining room required as much. I was willing to go hit the local thrift shop to get what I needed to fit their requirements. Would I not do as much to honor God’s presence?
I have, I admit, a rather over-developed protocol for my own part. At minimum, I will wear something other than jeans together with a dress shirt. If I am teaching I will add a tie. If I am serving communion, I’ll wear a suit. Why? Well, for the latter case, it is requested of us. But, even if it were not, I would fall back to tie. Again, why? It is in honor of God. I am representing Him. If there is pride in it, I pray He will thrust that pride aside. It’s certainly not done because I have any particular love for ties. I like them a bit more than I once did, but I’d still not choose to wear one for any other occasion that it was not absolutely required. Neither am I fond of dress shoes, they being generally less comfortable than sneakers or sandals. But, there are occasions that call for that sacrifice.
Perhaps that plays into my thinking as well: To dress as befits an audience before the king is something of a sacrifice. The Wycliffe Commentary points to the fact that modest dress reflects modest character. I am willing to say that, as concerns our attire in the house of God, our dress also reflects our assessment of the King. In that regard, I would say casual dress reflects casual relationship, and I’m not all convinced that is a good thing. God may well be our Father in heaven, but He is still the Almighty King and Creator of heaven and earth. He is worthy of our love – all our love. But, He is also rightly the object of our utmost reverent fear.
I say, then, that this matter of outward attire is equally applicable to both husband and wife, although it is the wife being referenced here. The standard that is set before us is one of seemliness. We ought not to dress so as to show off or so as to entice the admiration of our physique. We ought to dress in a fashion that reflects the inward condition – more properly, the inward condition towards which we strive. The goal is an outward appearance that accords with the inward character. But, that goal is only valuable so far as the inward character is as it should be.
We hear it said, “Dress for success.” The idea is to dress as if you already have the position you seek in the workplace. If you’re looking to be management then dress like management. If you dress like a careless teen, expect to be construed as one. The same may be said of Peter’s advice. If you would be happily married, dress like you are. If you would be counted a righteous man, dress like one. Oh! That advice grates on our ears today! It’s not seeker friendly, is it? But, should it be? Or should we rather advise as we are advised? Dress as if your character is already as it should be in God’s sight. Dress as if you reverence Him as you should. Dress as if He really is your highest concern. That does not suggest coming before Him in our gaudiest finery wearing our most expensive jewelry to display how well off we are. It commends a modest but decorous attire; we might say modesty with dignity.
But, our greatest attention must be on bringing our inward estate in line with our outward projection. If I look back to that business with the fig tree as Jesus entered Jerusalem that last time, what was His issue with the tree? It was not that the tree was bedecked with leaves. It is that the leaves advertised the presence of fruit and that fruit was not to be found. The appearance was deceiving. So, then, as we dress for spiritual success, dress is not enough. It is an effort to stir ourselves to do better, else it is just another sin added to our account.
Peter points us to the matters of character that suit proper attire: A gentle and quiet spirit. Again, his advice is delivered to the wife, but is just as well suited to the husband. Don’t think that this spirit is something that is only for the womenfolk. Consider: Clarke notes that this gentle, or meek spirit is one that does not incline towards provocation and is not itself readily provoked. If we replace quiet with meek, we cannot but be put in mind of Jesus, Meek and Mild. Jesus was no girly-man. He was a man among men. He was not impossible to provoke, but He saved His ire for the things that anger God. He did not seek conflict, but neither was He a doormat. He embodied the advice we have throughout Scripture, which is as it should be, for He is the author thereof. Insomuch as it lies with you, be at peace with all men (Ro 12:18). Love is patient, kind, not provoked, etc. (1Co 13:4-7). Yes, we see these work out in Jesus. But, recall that at His death, they looked at His robe as something of at least some worth, it being seamless and of one piece. He did not dress like a bum. Neither did He dress like some fop.
Meek in spirit: Not easily provoked nor provocative, but rather compassionate, caring deeply. Now, we are turned towards something said to the husband. Care and care deeply for your wife. Recall to mind that you yourself are the bride of Christ and contemplate His deep care for you. He has left you a model to follow. It wasn’t just in suffering. I like what Barnes points out in this regard: The qualities that Peter sets forth: meek and quiet spirit, caring and honor for others are all matters of the horizontal relationship (not that Barnes puts it in these terms). But, see what is not being commended here: Intellect and learning. And what Peter is advertising is not his own opinion, but God’s perspective. Not to say that God dislikes or discounts intelligence. He invented it. Not to say He rejects learning. He commends it. But, learning that does not produce the character He craves? It is worthless. If our learning is not put in practice it is merely an exercise of pride.
As my thoughts turn more to that last verse, and its direct address of my station, I must recognize that as it was with his address to the wife so it is with his address to me: Likewise. That is to say, everything which has been discussed so far, both in regard to slaves and in regard to wives, applies to me as well. I have surmised that already, but this makes it plain. Likewise: Be towards your wife as she is to be towards you. Don’t think that her chaste, quiet example is one thing, but you’re granted to go about displaying whatever physical attributes you may have in hopes of wowing the ladies. In fact, gentlemen, not only are you called to be gentlemen with the same character traits as your wives, you answer to a higher standard still: Grant her honor.
How is this to be done? There are many ways, but it begins with one: Respect her. Aretha wasn’t far off, was she? But, what does respect look like? Uphold her authority in the home. If you have kids, that’s going to be a constant challenge. You are not guaranteed to see things the same way, you and your wife. In fact, you can guarantee you won’t. But, if she has spoken, far be it from you, husband, to countermand her orders. It matters not how you approach this. Even if you two have gone off to privately discuss the matter and you come back with an altered answer, know well that you have undermined her authority. Likewise you wives! If your husband has set down an answer, don’t seek to wheedle him into an alternate answer. There is no way to do this that doesn’t undermine authority in the eyes of the child. The most you can do (and should do) is discuss the matter so as to have a more unified perspective for the next challenge.
Back to the husband. Respect is demonstrated in the protection of one’s wife. Here is where I say that jealousy, within proper bounds, is actually a good thing. Do you know that God is a jealous God? He says so (Ex 20:5)! He even proclaims this as His own name (Ex 34:14). It is that jealous love for you that led Him to the cross. It is because His care for you is as for the apple of His own eye (Ps 17:8). He has left you the example. Does He not instruct us to love our wives just as He loved the Church (Eph 5:25), and gave Himself up for her. Protect her! Protect her at all cost! There’s your instruction and your example.
The next bit should be easy, although we seem to make it hard for ourselves sometimes. Delight in her. She ought to be a source of constant joy to you. That’s not to say it’s going to be smooth sailing all the time. You will have your disagreements and your bad days. But, delight in her! There’s a reason you married this woman, and it wasn’t a business decision nor was it a political one. It wasn’t something arranged by your parents that you’ll just have to make the best of. You chose her and when she agreed to your choice there was no greater joy to be found, was there? So, then, why are your eyes casting about now? Those women she is called not to emulate, why do they attract your attention? That is not the pathway to delight, but to destruction. Delight in her. Consider that God made her precisely for you (and you for her). Where else should you go?
Finally, there is the matter of trust. If you do not demonstrably trust your wife (words alone will not cut it), then all that delight will not produce a happy home. If you uphold her authority before your kids, but then berate her for a fool in private, you have not arrived at honor. You are not living in an understanding way.
Let me just comment on that clause. To live with her in an understanding way is not to be taken as advising that we learn to put up with her weaknesses, understanding she can’t help herself. No! It’s living in accord with understanding. You, O wise man! You claim knowledge, then apply it! Who loves his wife loves himself. Who honors his wife honors himself. Who respects his wife respects himself. That is plain enough, I think. If you have married a woman you don’t respect, what, really, does that say about you? But, I dare say you have not married a woman unworthy of your respect. You have merely failed to do so. And again, what does that say about you?
Husbands, likewise: Let not your adornment be external only. Don’t be a trophy husband any more than you should be flaunting a trophy wife. Don’t play the metrosexual. It’s not what’s outside that makes clean, but what is inside. Character counts. In fact, in the end it is only character that counts. Work on that, and matters of outward appearance will take care of themselves. I know for my part that I could spend years working on nothing more than verse 7. And, should I do so, I am sure that verse 4 would flow naturally from that effort, and from verse 4, verse 3 would see to itself.
Recall that we are discussing standards of beauty. God has His definition of the beautiful human. Man has his. They are not the same. Which one are you pursuing? Which one should you pursue?
Love and Respect (10/12/14)
A year or two back, Jan happened upon a teaching series called, “Love and Respect”. The message of that ministry consists of this: Women need love, men need respect. Much is made of the different way in which men and women parse life. The thought is that Paul’s instructions in Ephesians lead us to conclude that this difference in parsing bespeaks the unique needs of husband and wife. She needs to know his love. He needs to have her respect. But, as much as I appreciate the message they deliver, and as beneficial as it can be to recognize these differences of perspective in each other, I cannot but notice that they have overshot the mark.
We all need love and we all need respect. The one without the other rings hollow. Perhaps they said as much and I’ve forgotten it. But, it is key to me that if I express all manner of love for my wife but yet show her no respect (let us assume such a thing is even possible) she is not going to be satisfied. Further, as I look at the address to husbands here, Peter does not tell us to love our wives. He says to honor them! That honor is more reflective of respect than love. Love is indeed commanded. It is commanded in some regard for our relationships with all people. Yes, the love we are to have for our spouse, leaving family behind to cleave to her in this one-flesh relationship is utterly unique to that relationship. And again I must note that love is bi-directional. It is not just Adam loves Eve. Eve is also to love Adam. So, too, with respect. Eve is not left the only one; required to honor and respect her husband. Adam is given the same duty: Honor Eve. Note well that even in that passage of Paul’s, the duty is bidirectional. “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21).
Here, I can turn to God’s example, for we are the bride of Christ, are we not? Christ does not love on us as His bride and then ask only respect in return. No! Half of the Law of God is summed up in the statement, “Love God with all you are.” But, again: That love cannot exist apart from respect. I think we can hold that the reverse is likewise true. We cannot truly respect that which we do not love. Oh, we can show respect, as we are told to do with the office of governor or president. But, we cannot truly respect that one in office unless we also love. Here, of course, the nature of love is quite different. But, the responsibility and the interdependency of love and respect are not. If it seems too hard to you that you are called to love the governing authorities, have no doubt that it is so. They are ministers of God for your good. Remember?
Calvin comes to the same point, concluding that love must be connected with respect. “For nothing destroys the friendship of life more than contempt.” We are in a period where society is overflowing with contempt. People have no interest or respect in the viewpoints of others. They have no respect for law or authority – even those charged with upholding the law have little respect for it. Every entertainment site and every news site is overrun by commenters who have but one purpose in life, it seems: To demonstrate their contempt for everyone and everything. I suppose I may well fall into that very same trap in these notes. But, God seeks a people who love and respect one another.
“The welfare of society, and the happiness of the individual, are not diminished by showing proper respect for all classes of persons in the various relations of life.” So writes Mr. Barnes. Indeed, that may qualify as great understatement. Treat it as we are taught to treat the Ten Commandments, and we must conclude that the welfare and happiness of both society at large and each individual therein are greatly improved by showing proper respect for all persons in all relations of life. And, it must be added, we are called to love them all, whatever their relation to us, and whatever their state. This is exactly the perspective that we shall develop if we are heeding Peter’s words here and developing a ‘gentle and quiet spirit’.
Equality (10/13/14)
As one begins to see, once they get beyond a surface reading, Peter – and Scripture more generally – actually promotes a view of man and woman that accents their equality. It does so without denying the distinct differences between man and woman. Thus, Peter does indeed address certain advice to one or the other, but the conclusion one must reach is that the advice applies to both.
Barnes makes extensive note of this fact, and draws conclusions that are particularly applicable today. This may come as something of a surprise, given they were written some 150 years ago. But there it is. He notes, for example, that respect of womankind is a mark of Christian impact on a society. Looking around the world today, I should think we can state that the corollary holds equally true: Where Christianity’s impact is on the wane, so too is respect for women. Take a look around the US today and one can see that playing. Even women, it seems, have no respect for women. Some of these very women would no doubt shout me down as a misogynist for observing that point. But, that reaction will not change the facts.
There is another point Barnes makes that similarly seems written for the world today. Those who would promote a woman’s equality, he suggests, should be promoting the Gospel first and foremost. And yet, what we see instead is that those most strident in their advocacy of women’s liberation (and men’s eradication, truth be told), are also amongst the most strident in their denigration of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christianity, they insist, is a male-dominated religion that teaches male domination. Yet, what is really demonstrated in passages such as the one before us is that there is a recognition of the unique qualities and perspectives of male and female, but a commanded equality of worth. You are co-heirs. That is not an assigning of greater worth to one, but of equal worth to both. If anything, the male is given more difficult terms with which to comply, for he is to be the woman’s equal in those instructions addressed her way, and to this is added the responsibility of caring for her. Is that some great evil? Is that denigrating to a woman, to acknowledge her as the finer article and the one more to be cherished? So be it.
But, to those who are so easily put off by the call for submission, or the insistence upon men as teachers in the church, may I suggest a more careful reading? May I suggest that much of what is perceived as advocating a view of women as property is a reflection of the culture into which the message was delivered? But, the whole point of the message was and is to overcome the culture. The view of womankind which we are given in the Scriptures is absolutely at odds with the view of the society extent at the time. They really did consider women to be inferior, and little more than property to be kept or disposed of as the man sees fit. But, the message of God is that this perspective is utterly wrong. She is your equal. In Christ there is neither male nor female, for you are all one (Gal 3:28). Now, it should be obvious that Paul does not intend this to be taken literally. Clearly, the Jew remains a Jew and the Greek a Greek. Becoming a Christian did not suddenly elevate the slave’s status to that of a free man – certainly not in the eyes of the state. Neither did the distinctive aspects of the sexes suddenly disappear. On entering the church we are not confronted with an androgynous population. Distinctions remain. But, those distinctions do not define God’s people. Those distinctions do not alter the fundamental equality.
I could liken it to the matter of spiritual gifts that Paul addressed with the Corinthians. If this one speaks in tongues and that one does not, this does not render the first holier than the last. It merely demonstrates how God has opted to dispense His gifts. If one is a preacher and another an evangelist, this points out no lack in the one and no superiority in the other. It is but a matter of how God has opted to dispense His gifts. So, too, male and female, husband and wife. They are unique. They have their own set of talents and weaknesses. But, they are equal in that they are recipients of God’s gifts and are heirs of heaven. The citizenship of heaven has no class distinctions. The people of God, as they travel the nations of the earth, ought likewise to apply no such class distinctions. Neither gender nor ethnicity nor education nor prosperity ought to be permitted room in our thinking to count one as more worthy than the other. All should be received as equals and perceived as equals.
What Barnes says of the treatment of women, then, we can apply far more broadly and still be true to Scripture. But, the passage at hand speaks to this particular point of contrast, as it has previously spoken to the contrast between slave and master. Let it be understood that Peter addresses the most strained relationships in the society he addresses. But, the application is to be made in whatever relationships we have. So, let us broaden the statement: Those who would promote equality ought to promote the Gospel first and foremost.
Look around. Those who have attempted to do the former without the latter have failed. Those who have sought to promote the latter while ignoring or opposing the former have done neither. Perhaps it’s time we tried doing both, as God does.
Fear and Weakness (10/14/14)
Having established to my satisfaction that Peter’s words are for all even though addressed to a portion, I conclude that the oddly phrased close of his address to the wives is not for wives only. “Do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” It is suggested that Peter has Proverbs 3:25 in mind, which admonishes us not to be afraid of sudden fear. But the phrase still tends to confound. I think Peter has the sense of it, if indeed he is considering that proverb, in that he shifts from sudden fear to any fear.
But, let us not get lost in the unusual phrasing. The meaning is sufficiently clear. Fear mustn’t prevent obedience. Our willingness to do right cannot be allowed to be contingent upon the receptiveness of those before whom we do it. This is clearly of a piece with what he has been saying in other contexts. Your service to your master, slave, is not to be conditioned upon your master’s goodness towards you. Your behavior towards your husband, wife, is not to be conditioned upon his goodness towards you. Neither, husband, is your treatment of your wife to be contingent upon her submissiveness, beauty or goodness. Your right living is to be done in reverent fear of God. That ought to suffice. What you do for the reciprocal goodness of man is of no particular value. It is not unacceptable. It’s just that, as Jesus pointed out, it’s nothing the worst unbeliever wouldn’t do.
What value is it if you love the one who loves you? Everybody does that. What righteousness does it demonstrate if you care for those who care for you? The worst of sinners does that. What value is it, to look from the other side, if your righteousness ends where opposition begins? If you cannot love your enemies as Christ commands, then to what degree can you claim to belong to Christ? I don’t say this to condemn, or to cause us to despair. No! Our Jesus is merciful beyond measure with us disobedient servants. But, in our disobedience, if we are truly His, how we desire to obey Him more fully! How we long to be strong in faith as we face a world that not only disbelieves but hates belief!
Fear mustn’t prevent obedience. Fear mustn’t move us to unrighteousness. This is certainly what the martyrs understand. But, it isn’t just for martyrs. This is every day. When you go to work, does fear of your boss cause you to do what is not right? Do you fear losing your job if you don’t? When pressured to keep silent about your God, do you comply for fear of reprisals, or do you gird yourself with Peter’s boldness and proclaim, “Whether it is better to obey you or God, you be the judge”?
Now, it is true that Peter addresses this primarily at the women, and there is just cause for that. As the JFB notes, women are more inclined towards fear where men will tend to react in anger. Obviously, this is a generalization and subject to all the shortcomings of a generalization. But, the principle holds in real life. It should be noted as well that neither response is advocated as better than the other. They are both wrong. Thus, the JFB notes a bit further on, if there is weakness in the woman, it is only relative, for you are weak as well. That response of anger is evidence of weakness just as her response of fear. And, we might add, men are hardly immune to fear. If we dig below the surface we find that the angry response is really just another manifestation of fear. Men are trained to fearlessness where women are not. We can waste some time debating whether this training is a symptom of male-dominated culture, or whether it’s more a matter of genetics. But, it would be a waste of time and an effort to avoid the point at hand.
We are all of us weak. We are all of us inclined to fear at some level. Much is made in the news of late in this regard. It seems like the nation, if not the world, is caught in the grip of dread. The news is grim and getting grimmer, and we are utterly inundated with it all through the day. Thank you, technology! Used to be you could at least limit your intake to a half-hour dose of awful once, maybe twice a day. Now, it is fed to us wherever we go. The web is updating with the latest atrocities every minute of the day. Stores have one news channel or another on. Workplaces pipe in the bosses’ preferred cable news. Even the Weather Channel, for crying out loud, cannot seem to help itself. They must trot every last example of doom for you in sixty-second chunks. Everything is out to get you. Nature itself is against you. What chance do you have, really, when death awaits you at every step? Why try? Why get up? Do right? What’s the point? You’ll be just as dead. Might as well eat, drink and be merry, like that guy in the parable (Lk 12:19).
Let us face the day with the words of Jehoshaphat ringing in our ears. “Thus says the Lord to you, ‘Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God’s” (2Chr 20:15). It matters not whether the battle is against armies, against storms, against disease, against peer pressure, or even against your own fleshly ways. The battle is God’s. Only be strong and very courageous, careful to do according to all which God commands you. Turn not to the right or the left. Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go (Josh 1:7, Josh 1:9).
Prayer (10/15/14)
Peter’s last admonition, directed to the husband, concerns the matter of prayer. Prayer is brought in as a supporting reason for living in the manner he has instructed. If you don’t, the reasoning goes, your prayers will be hindered. That could come across as encouraging a rather poor motivation for obedience. Obey or God won’t listen to you. That may very well be the case, but it’s hardly the attitude towards God that we desire to inculcate.
But, this isn’t Peter offering some spiritual reward for treating your spouse right. He is simply stating a spiritual truth. Calvin rephrases it, “Among strifes and contentions there is no place for prayer.” If you but consider your own record you will see that this is true. Two people who are angry and at odds with one another will not come together for prayer. Even if they are somehow constrained to be together in prayer, you know that their thoughts will not be on the prayer but on their differences. Dissension prevents united prayer.
The JFB would add that blessing depends from just such united prayer. Well, there is certainly the word of Christ that, where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there (Mt 18:20). That, however, is spoken in regards to church discipline. Yet, there is something here. There is an assumption. Peter is not instructing husbands to pray with their wives. He is assuming they already do. He is noting that, if husband and wife are at odds with one another, this coming together in prayer is not likely to be happening, and prayer is such a privilege, as Barnes notes, that this should move us to be reconciled of an instant. If dissension prevents prayer, how we ought to seek harmony!
So, then, if the assumption is that we pray together, how safe is that assumption? How safe ought it to be? Prayer is key to preparing us for eternity, says Clarke. Just so. We often treat prayer as some poor effort we make because we can’t do anything better. How backwards our thinking becomes! No! The truth of the matter is prayer is the best thing we can do. Any action we might take in our own power will be valueless apart from prayer. Yes, love must be active and the brother who says, “I’ll pray for you”, but refuses to help as lies in his power to help, is properly rebuked. But, this is not a relegating of prayer to the status of a pointless gesture. It is only making the point that spirituality is not divided from humanity.
So, then, a family prayer life is assumed. Let it be accepted that if it can be assumed that husband and wife pray together, it can also be assumed that they pray with and for their children. If, then, this prayer life is assumed, there is another assumption we can make: We ought, for our own well-being, to seek this daily time of uniting for prayer. I was struck by a statement from Barnes on this point. “The true question to be asked on the subject is not whether a man must, but whether he may pray.” Truth be told, I too often think of it as a must. But, how great a privilege we have in being permitted into the presence of God to present our praises and our petitions!
Let me attempt to stir up a greater desire in myself with this point. When it comes to worshiping in song, I’m there! I’m looking for the opportunity and glad of it when it comes. When it comes to study, I am much the same. Yes, there are days when it feels more a labor than a love, but I also know that I derive much pleasure and much benefit from this pursuit and, barring exceptional circumstances, I am generally loathe to lose so much as a morning’s opportunity to pursue it. But, prayer should not only be in the same category, it should be far and away above these other pursuits. Without prayer, study is merely mental gymnastics. Without prayer, worship is just a sing-along. Without prayer, preaching is vanity and wind. Without prayer, the best harmony of the household is devoid of value and produces no fruit beyond a bit of fleshly pleasure. And that, quite simply, is not enough.
“The true question to be asked on the subject is not whether a man must, but whether he may pray.” Carried into the immediate context, it’s not whether I am required to pray with my wife, but when may I do so? How soon might I find opportunity? I know her desire is that we would find the time. I know, and I have written of it before, that I have some sort of blockage in this regard. Lord, help my attitude. Bring me to the place of desire, where that desire is first to be with You in prayer, and second to be together with my dear wife in prayer. Thank You, that You have provided me with so perfect a partner. Thank You for the marvelous growth we have known in our relationship. But, I pray You, work upon me that we may add this to the beautiful work You have done in us, that we may be drawn together to pray often. God, I know myself too well. I know I can easily set this thought aside as I move to the next passage. Let it not be. Keep me mindful of this morning’s desire, that my desire for my wife shall be both physical and spiritual, that we might even today be joined in prayer not out of duty but out of opportunity.
