New Thoughts: (12/30/13-01/01/14)
The language makes plain that Peter is arriving at a conclusion, a summary statement here. One might, however, question whether verse 13 presents us with the summation of the summation or an introductory statement on his next head. The word which begins verse 13 is kai [2532]. The range of possibilities this word offers for translation allows for many viable perspectives. Strong notes that the particle, most simply translated as ‘and’, has ‘a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force’. The former term refers simply to its use in coupling one clause to another: this and that. But, where the cumulative sense applies, it comes nearer that ‘therefore’ we find so often in Paul’s writing, forcing us to review what precedes, recognizing that here is the capsule summation of the preceding argument. Thayer offers this view as second only to the simple, connective use of ‘and’. He writes that ‘it joins to partitive words the general notion’, giving the sense of ‘in a word, in short’.
For my own part, I see it in this concluding, summarizing sense. Peter has been providing a series of specific examples regarding the habit of holiness. I am mindful of that thought sometimes given to the Pentateuch; that the presentation of the Decalogue presents the law as written, and the remainder presents the case law. Here, I can see Peter doing the same in reverse. He has presented a great deal of ‘case law’, or applied sanctification. Always, particularly given the circumstances of the young churches to whom he writes, there is the background understanding that opposition and persecution attend on one’s efforts at holiness. But, verse 13 presents his point in simplest form. Persevere in doing good in all circumstances, all relationships, and what real and lasting harm can come to you? It is much the same thought as Paul’s, “If God is for us, who can be against us” (Ro 8:31)? It’s not that no man can oppose us. The majority will, as well we know. But, their opposition is made ineffectual on the eternal scale, for in the end, these tribulations, though weighty in the present, are light and temporary things. Eternity awaits with eternal blessings in store.
Thus, though Peter will continue to discuss the matter of what we may well perceive as unjust suffering, this passage does conclude the setting out of examples by which to model our daily lives. Here are a suite of common relationships in which you may find yourselves. It may be with fellow believers. It may be with vehement unbelievers. It doesn’t matter. Your behavior ought be the same. Whatever your circumstance, persist in doing what is good and right and true.
Now, we may well consider that verse 8 is directed primarily at the household of faith. Considering the terms presented in this opening salvo, there are certainly those theological sources that wish to draw such a distinction. Zhodiates, for example, expresses his view that philadelphos, which we know bespeaks brotherly love, familial love, is specifically to be applied amongst believers, whereas our response towards unbelievers is to be characterized by philanthropia, a general fondness for mankind. The word is clearly recognized as the source of our own philanthropy. It is a more general benevolence towards humanity at large. Thayer concurs with the idea that this philadelphos to which we are commanded is a love specifically for our fellow members in the family of faith.
If I look forward to verse 9, I would prefer to believe Peter’s attention is given to a wider application. One would like to believe that within the family of faith we have no occasion for experiencing evil directed our way, for abiding under insult. In an ideal state, a church that had attained to its fullness, that would no doubt be the case. But, listening to the experiences of those who work within the church or within parachurch organizations, it is clear that our fallen natures persist even in such settings. This should hardly surprise, yet it does. Somehow, it wounds us more deeply to experience mistreatment in these places where, we suppose, we ought have no expectation of such. Yet, if we were more honest in our self-assessments, I suspect we would find no further cause for surprise. We, after all, remain fallen in our ways. Why would we suppose our fellow believers ought to be doing better?
The heart, we are reminded, is more deceitful than anything and everything else, being desperately sick (Jer 17:9). We are forever either overestimating our own progress in sanctification or underestimating it. If we are doing well in one area, we suppose ourselves doing marvelously in all areas. If we are failing in one area, we are sure we are the only ones to be such miserable wrecks. Surely, everybody else at church is beyond such things! Surely, I am the only one. It is one thing to be humble in spirit, as Peter recommends along with his fellow apostles. It’s quite another to allow the enemy of our souls to convince us we stand alone in our sin.
Now, given the particular penchants of modern society to misinterpret everything and anything as hiding a latent homosexual bent, I must give a bit more attention to this term philadelphos. It is so often misrepresented now as to become almost laughable, were it not so sad. Oh, look! They are promoting love amongst the brothers! Oho! But, such prurient interpretation is wholly unwarranted. It reflects not the intent of the author, but the proclivities of the reader. The meaning, as derived from the actual terms in use, is plain.
Philos is generally well understood to mean a love for, but has absolutely zero sensual connotations. Consider the term philosophy: love of knowledge, or philology: the love of language. Here, one is likely more used to seeing, ‘the study of’ rather than ‘the love of’. But, it is love for the subject that leads to its study. Now, in the context of knowledge, wisdom or language, one would hardly be inclined to suppose any sort of sexual interest. It would make no sense. In plain point of fact, the same holds true wherever we find philos.
To make the situation plainer still, the second half of our term, adelphos, is from the root delphus, indicating the womb. Thus, we have the sense, ‘of one womb’, brothers in the simple, biological sense; siblings, for there is no requirement that both be male. I would suppose the great bulk of humanity knows what it is to have siblings. Yes, there are only children, who are denied the direct experience of this. Yet, even there, we might expand the term only slightly so as to encompass cousins or parents, and not lose the point. There is a familial love that all of us understand. I carefully opt for understand rather than experience for families, like churches, are constructed from fallen beings who do not always, or even generally, pursue their roles as they ought. Parents are not always good parents any more than children are always good children. There will always be examples aplenty of relationships that are not as they should be. Yet, we understand this to be the case precisely because we understand how they should be.
Familial love: We hear it in expressions like, “Blood is thicker than water.” We see it depicted everywhere. We understand that, however much we may ride and deride our siblings it is strictly a family prerogative. Don’t you try it, or you’ll feel my wrath! Don’t you talk about my mother! My son would never do such a thing. How dare you even insinuate it? No. It is understood at our very core that we may be ever so critical of our family, but never of another’s. There are few offenses greater.
This is what Peter is telling us about the household of faith, the family of believers. It is exactly what he is driving at. As jealous as you would be of the reputation and welfare of your biological kin, just so you should consider this spiritual family into which you have been adopted. They are your kin. They are more your kin than those with whom you grew up. You have, after all, been reborn. Think back on Jesus, confronted by His own biological family because they were concerned for Him. “Who is My mother? Who are My brothers?” He pointed round to His gathered disciples. “Behold! My mother and My brothers! For those who do the will of My Father in heaven are My brother, My sister, My mother” (Mt 12:48-50). For, those who do the Father’s will show themselves sons of the Father, as Jesus showed Himself the True Son of the Father. Blood is thicker than water.
The list of characteristics that Peter commends in verse 8 presents some challenges for the translators, to the point that where the NASB has ‘humble in spirit’, the KJV has ‘be courteous’. On this term in particular, there is some doubt as to the proper term. The KJV has followed one set of manuscripts in supposing tapeinophrones. The NASB apparently follows a different set of manuscripts, and arrives at philophrones. In either case, it appears to be a word found nowhere else in Scripture. That necessarily presents a challenge to the interpreter. Surprisingly, the NET doesn’t weigh in on the matter.
For my own part, as I look at this list, there is certainly a degree of parallelism being presented. Sympathetic and kindhearted are related concepts, as is the familial love commended between these two points. Kindhearted actually drives at a strong sense of compassion, literally calling upon us to have strong bowels. It is such an odd way to depict compassion, as we view things, yet it is quite reasonable. The whole idea of compassion is that one’s loving concern is so deep that it becomes gut-wrenching. We know that feeling, to be sure. We just don’t associate it with compassion so much as concern. This, as I say, sits parallel to the call to be sympathetic, sumpatheis; to have close union of feeling, commiserate. It echoes the command to mourn with those who mourn. But, where one leaves off at shared feeling, the other demands action. Share their sorrows. Then act to do something about them. Be sympathetic and well-compassioned.
Again, the call for brotherly love, familial feeling and comradery sits between these two. It is another parallel of sorts, in that such sympathy and compassion most naturally flow from us in connection with immediate family.
I shall just say here that as my daughter has been contemplating wandering off into the country at large with no particular plan and no particular goal, these aspects of parental life have come into sharp relief. I can commiserate with her desire to explore, to get out on her own, to see life. I also know that gut-wrenching compassionate concern at the thought. The world is not always or even often kind. It cares little for the dreamer of dreams. She is, of course, of an age to decide for herself, to discard advice as she sees fit and pursue whatever she determines to pursue. How I would love to stand like Pilate and just wash my hands of the matter. It would be so much easier! But, a dad is not granted so easy a course. My Father never washed His hands of me: O, Ephraim! How could I leave you?
I know I broke out that passage in the previous study. It comes to mind often, being the great comfort that it is. But, the same depth of compassion applies in my own parental relationship. I cannot simply abandon this daughter of mine to the wolves. Neither can I have any real hope of fencing her off from all danger and risk. If I could, I would but stunt her development at any rate; doing great harm in the hope of doing some good. What is left, but to pray, but to speak as the Lord gives me words, to trust Him with this child He entrusted to me. Did I do a good job? Time will tell. The present, hopefully, will not. But, who (apart from God) knows the future? Who amongst those who knew me at that age would have supposed I should now be as I am? I certainly didn’t.
The nearest I can think of one who might have would be that co-worker who told me that in spite of my then-liberal views I would find myself a conservative as I grew older. Indeed, where the young are permitted to truly grow up, I suspect this is ever the case. Sadly, looking around me today, I question whether we are still permitting the young to mature. But, that is a line of thought utterly foreign to this passage. Apologies.
Back to verse 8! So, we find a certain affinity of terms in the middle of this list. But, I want to consider the linguistic beauty of the two enclosing terms, particularly in conjunction with the middle. This is not going to show up in the English translations, which is rather unfortunate for us. But, (following the NASB) if I look at the terms rendered ‘harmonious’, ‘brotherly’ and ‘humble in spirit’, I see these: homophrones, philadelphoi, philophrones. There is, as I say, something of linguistic beauty to these. It befits poetry to be thus arranged. We are accustomed to rhyme and perhaps meter as defining the poetic. But, to the Hebrew mind, poetry lay as well in the syllables, in the parallels. So, consider in this case: We have the enclosing thoughts (assuming the manuscript we have followed is the right one) of homophrones, like-minded, and philophrones, actively fond in mind. This is something quite distinct from the ‘humble in spirit’ that NASB offers, so perhaps I am wrong in supposing they have taken to this manuscript.
Well: After an admittedly swift survey of translations, it would seem I cannot find a one that accepts this philophrones term as being correct. All drive towards the ‘humble in spirit’ rendering, which would translate tapeinophrones. In that case, one might suppose the attestations to philophrones were the artistic efforts of some scribe along the way. Better, then, to abandon this line of exploration.
It is interesting, certainly, that Peter offers the fact that we were called to inherit a blessing as a means of reinforcing that we should bless. Bless where evil or insult might be more likely to recommend itself to your thoughts. Why? Because you were called ‘for the very purpose’ of inheriting a blessing. Well, Peter, what has that to do with anything? What has my inheritance to do with my response to these outrages? Brother, it has everything to do with it! Think back! Think back to what your situation was before you were called. Here is God’s assessment: You were at enmity with Him. You were His enemy. You hated Him and everything that He represented. If you used His name at all, it was only in the form of a curse, and as often as not, directed His way. But, how did He respond to you? Did He respond in kind? No! He blessed. How astounding is that? How completely beyond the realm of the expectable?
Now: Being reminded of your own treatment at the hands of so great a God, consider as well the lessons He taught. Specifically, “Forgive as you have been forgiven. If you will not, then expect no forgiveness yourself.” Do you like the idea of being at peace with the God Who created the universe, and Who upholds it every moment of every day? Demonstrate it by being as He is, you who bear His image! As you have received, so freely give. That’s really all this is about. As you have received, so give out. You received mercy where none was due. Give out mercy, then, to those who have not earned it. Who, after all, could earn mercy? It doesn’t work that way.
Likewise, go beyond even mercy. Pour out blessings on those who would wrongly use you, just as God poured out blessing on you who had so greatly wronged Him. To repay evil with evil is evil. If you react to insult by spewing further insult, you are no better than that one you abuse.
Time for a stray aside that is thoroughly apropos. I spent probably more time than I ought watching back episodes of Doctor Who yesterday. This would seem a most unlikely place to spot anything of particular application to the life of faith, and yet I was actually rather stunned by the number of applicable bits to be found. Perhaps it takes the eyes of faith to see, but very Christian themes run through the show, if one cares to observe.
To the point at hand, there is the episode where the Doctor comes to meet the last surviving member of the deadly race of the Daleks. Here then are two final members of their race, mutual survivors of a mutual genocide. Here is the Dalek, a being engineered to have no feelings beyond the militaristic urge to exterminate all enemies. There is the Doctor, the protagonist, the one who is expected to do what is good and right. Yet, as they arrive at the final showdown, the Dalek is found to be less inclined towards destroying the Doctor than the Doctor is towards destroying the Dalek. The point I wish to pull from this plot is simply that the Doctor, in so much as he was determined to kill off this being who had (at least by association with his race) killed so many, demonstrated himself to be no better. He, too, was on a setting which allowed no option but, “Exterminate.” This, I think, provides a picture of what Peter is getting at. If we respond in kind, we only demonstrate that we are of a kind. If we react as sinful flesh, we represent sinful flesh. If, however, we respond in grace! Then we have stood as ambassadors of heaven. Then, we have shown that we are true sons of the Father.
Let me reverse that connection, though. What verse 9 requires of us is no different than what we have from God. That is a key factor to me. It is a key factor to Scripture as well. Paul speaks of the point, and in much the same context. “Be kind to each other, tender-hearted and forgiving, just as God in Christ has also forgiven you” (Eph 4:32). Peter has already visited this point. “You were called for this, since Christ suffered for you as an example for you to follow” (1Pe 2:21). This is one of the big draws to Christianity, I think. God requires nothing He hasn’t done Himself. He does not make us go through any trial He has not personally faced, and He does not insist on some response from us that He would not do Himself, has not already done Himself.
Jesus would often point out that He was doing nothing but what He saw the Father doing, saying nothing but what He heard from the Father. As Peter said, all of this is set before us, done before our eyes (or at least his) as an example to follow. Jesus didn’t come down to show off, to demonstrate how He could be better than anybody else. No! He came down to demonstrate that we all can be that good. He came down to ensure that we could all be that good. And, He has been at pains ever since to help us be that good.
So, then, there it is: Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult. Why? Because this is not the treatment you have received from your Master. He is your model. He is your example. He is the One you represent. As His Son (your brother, now) did only as Father does, so you, son of God, do only as your Father does.
From here, Peter turns to the testimony of Scripture, which is always well as we seek to instruct. We do not simply throw our advice out there and assume all will see its goodness. No. We back our perspectives with sound exposition of the revealed Truth of God. Peter does no different. He has set out his perspective on what maturity must look like amongst these new believers, and now he backs up his perspective. Verses 10 through 12 constitute a pretty much verbatim quotation of Psalms 34:12-16. In other words, what Peter is advising is no new thing. It is what has always been required.
Set in the middle of this quotation is the picture of repentance. We tend to have a sense of repentance that amounts to little more than saying, “I’m sorry.” It is interesting how often we see this play out in the media these days. Some personality or other says something well beyond the pale in their efforts at discrediting another personality. The public reacts with appropriate disgust. Said personality takes to the airwaves or whatever medium is at hand to proclaim themselves abjectly sorrowful for having said what they clearly meant to say and enjoyed saying. It being clear that this was no error, and that the apology is little more than an attempt to save face (and possibly position), the disgust does not abate.
Take that image to heart when considering your approach to repentance before God. Clearly, those sins we continue in are things we do willingly. Certainly, the temptations offered up by Satan and his crew play into it. Certainly we can write it off as the product of our fallen flesh, having nothing to do with the ‘real me’. These truths have their place. But, they do not remove the moral culpability. They do not provide us with the right to do wrong. When, as so often happens, we pray that God would forgive our sins, and even as we pray we are contemplating our next opportunity to sin again, it should be clear to us (were we not so adept at blinding ourselves) that this is not repentance. This is, at best, sorrow for getting caught. This is concern for saving face. Somewhere deep inside, we suspect that our insistent pursuit of this sin might just serve as evidence against our salvation. So, we cling to 1John 1:9, and claim boldy, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us.” Except, we are pretty sure we somehow have the right to demand He do so.
I have to admit that when I consider that verse, I always hear it as the Vineyard song has presented it. Thus, I tend to think it says, “If we confess our sins, and turn away from them, He is faithful.” The second clause is not there in the text. It is, however, there in the larger context. If we confess our sins, and do not turn away from them, what are we doing other than bragging about them? Yes, I admit I do such and so. We may as well follow the culture and add, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” But, then, we know there’s something wrong with that. That’s why we confess our sins; because we know they are sins. If, however, we know they are sins, then how is it we do not turn away?
Look at verse 11 in the text. “Let him turn away from evil and do good.” This is a course change. Repentance: The very word connotes doing a U-turn, recognizing that the direction we have been going is absolutely wrong, and making a determined, purposeful about face. That way is wrong. I will not go. This way is right. This, then, is my way. Repentance cannot be in thought. The task of repentance cannot be satisfied by words alone. Repentance requires action.
Now, to be sure, as we remain fallen creatures, our repentance is unlikely to be any more perfect than our righteousness. We will slip up. We will fall back into old ways. But, we won’t remain there. God will lift us out, remind us from whence we have fallen, and point us back to the Way. If, indeed, we are His children. If, indeed, we are His children, we will heed the reminder, and set ourselves the more resolute as we try and try again.
One of our great tools in resisting the pull of sin is to replace the temptation with a better desire. Jesus spoke of this issue. He had a demon out of some poor soul, and pointed to what needed to follow on that. If you leave that space empty, said demon will just come back and bring his friends with him, and you will wind up worse than before (Mt 12:43-45). What is to prevent this? It is not enough that the house was clean swept and orderly. It must have its proper occupant. Elsewise, it is a hotel room with the ‘vacant’ sign blinking bright in the night.
In that setting, the clear solution is that this room must be let permanently to God Himself, that He, in the person of Christ (or as we understand it post-Ascension, the person of the Holy Spirit), take up His proper abode within us. We become temples of the Holy God of heaven, and He abides not merely with us, but in us. He occupies the space, and there is no power in all of Hades that can move Him from His place.
So, then, you will ask (I know I do), how is it that we continue to sin if the perfectly holy God of all resides within us? Short answer: I don’t know! It amazes me, and leaves me sorrowing for my own dismal maintenance of this temple. But, He does, and because He abides, that which is cast out cannot return. This, I should say, gives greater cause to Paul’s advice that we not grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). It is that particular Person of the Trinity who most clearly abides in us, and shall we suppose He will stay in a place that grieves Him to the core? Would you?
But, sin remains a battle for us. The eyes, the ears, the taste buds, the senses in all their forms seem ever to draw us towards that which we know we ought not to do. We live in a society bent on promoting every possible form of sin by every possible means that by some means, they may corrupt every possible person. It’s before us day in and day out. What are we to do? Do we try and blank out that part of the screen? Do we change channel ever so swiftly should something offensive come on screen? It’s too late by then! Yes, we can change the channel, but we cannot unsee what has been seen, cannot unhear what has been heard. The seed is planted already.
So, do we shut off every form of media, to prevent it coming near us? We cannot. Apart from pulling down the window shades, shutting off the electricity, and sitting in our darkened rooms until death takes us, it’s just not going to happen. We must of necessity go into stores to procure our provisions. We must, most of us, make our way to the workplace. There is zero likelihood of us making even these short excursions without passing temptations of all sorts. We have a paid class of tempters, after all. We call them admen. We call them politicians, for how does one get elected anymore other than to play to the worst instincts, the desire for free stuff, or somebody else’s stuff? And what is that other than envy, covetousness?
But, Peter is giving us a picture here, a picture first painted by David. The true counter to turning from evil is not the ‘do good’ clause, but that which follows: “Let him seek and pursue peace.” The doing of good is part of that pursuit. It can be argued, certainly, that these two clauses are but parallel thoughts. I would likely make the argument myself. But, the one gives us an abstract. “Do good.” Great. Who gets to define good? Having taught Judges last semester, it’s hard not to think on that awful summary of the time, “Every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Jdg 17:6, Jdg 21:25). So bad a summation it needed repeating, lest we miss it the first time.
If we would do good, it must needs be the good that God defines. But, that second clause gives us a concrete action, even if it seems the concrete hasn’t quite set yet. “Seek peace and pursue it.” OK. We must clarify one point immediately. While we are, as Paul instructs, to do our best to be at peace with all men (Ro 12:18), that’s not what Peter is driving at in this instance. The peace that matters, the peace that deserves to be pursued as our greatest desire is peace with God. “He has told you what is good, what He requires of you: Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with Him” (Mic 6:8). What do you know? That’s pretty much what Peter just finished saying!
Turn away from evil, but don’t just cover your eyes and hope it will go away. It won’t. Resist the devil and he will flee, yes (Jas 4:7). But, if he came back ‘at an opportune time’ to harass Jesus further, rest assured, he will be back in your case. Oh, he may not be taking you on as a personal assignment – hardly likely, really. But, he knows how to delegate, don’t you doubt that. If we but turn from the evil and hide away, we are in that place of the empty, clean-swept room. We are, then, in a place of greatest peril. The eyes, the windows of the soul, need to be looking to something better, something that will fill that clean room with light and life. Ah! Therein we have our answer, do we not? Turn your eyes upon Jesus. Seek the kingdom. Run after the ways of righteousness.
Back in the old days, they had the saying that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. Idle thoughts might better fit the case. Idleness in general opens us to temptation. If we are not busy in active pursuit of the kingdom, our thought life is wide open to every temptation. If we are not actively mindful of our mission as ambassadors of Christ, temptation finds little to resist it. It sees an empty, inviting room with no occupant, and it comes right on in and makes itself at home. And, before we know what it is we have done, we discover we have welcomed it in and even brought it drinks.
Notice the contrast Peter and David set before us. On the one hand, cease and desist. That turn away is not like some Victorian lady quickly averting her gaze from something that ought not be seen. No, it’s a full stop. Cut the engines, get out of the car, and if necessary, blow the place up. Stop. Just stop. No more! It is the response of courage, particularly under oppression. It is the rejection of sin’s tyranny, the refusal of bondage. If we had a proper sense of covenant anymore, we might come that point Job came to, making covenant with our eyes, our ears, that we will not look upon. We will not listen to. We will not partake in. Unfortunately, our sense of covenant is as weak as our sense of righteousness.
But, lo! Go to the other side of the equation. Seek eagerly! Work hard to acquire peace with God. That pursuit: That’s what it consists of, hard work. Recall how Jesus would compare the kingdom of God with everything we consider precious and valuable. If you had set before you a particularly marvelous pearl at sale price, you know well you would go do whatever you needed to in order to raise the funds to procure it. If you knew a fortune lay hidden in that vacant lot downtown, you know you would be hitting every bank in town for a loan until you were able to buy that lot. And you would move swiftly, lest another got the deal before you did. Seek eagerly! Work hard to acquire! Jesus spoke of it in terms of God’s kingdom. Peter, setting God’s kingdom before us, points us a step along the way. For, we can hardly expect to enjoy God’s kingdom if we are not at peace with Him.
Put another way, we can hardly expect God’s pleasure towards us if we are continuing in our rebellion against Him. Or, another way yet again: We cannot continue in practicing evil and expect His blessing in return. That sets us more fully in Peter’s context. “You were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing” (verse 9), but before that can happen, this needs to be dealt with: Seek peace with Him who holds the blessing in store for you. Pursue His plan in order that He may bless you. If you insist on this pursuit of rebellious sin, how can you expect peace?
This ought to chill us to the bone when we discover ourselves swept up in sin once again. The author of Hebrews, unsurprisingly, urges much the same message on us. “Pursue peace with all. Pursue sanctification, for nobody will see the Lord apart from sanctification. Look not only to yourself, but to others, so that none of you comes up short in grace” (Heb 12:14-15). Then, he reminds us of Esau, who sold his birthright to satisfy a momentary urge. Then comes this terrible note. “You know, after all, that even later, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected. For he could not and would not repent, though he tearfully sought after the blessing” (Heb 12:17).
The more literal offering of that line is, “He found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.” A bit more exegetical care is due here, but this is not the passage I am focused on at present. One might ask whether the ‘it’ he sought was repentance or the blessing. I am inclined to think the latter. But, suppose it is the former. “Though he sought repentance with tears, he found no place for repentance.” That lends the force of impossibility to the matter. He could not repent. He could not turn from his ways. He could not turn towards the Lord. That seems cold, and it offends our senses that one who so clearly desires to repent cannot. But, then we have the example of Pharaoh to contemplate as well, he whose heart was hardened lest he turn from his wickedness. Not the slightest chance that he would repent. It wasn’t in the plan and purpose. And shall we accuse God of injustice in this? By no means! It is only by His mercy that any man repents. It is only by His grace that any man realizes there is need to repent. And it is only by His choosing that we are chosen to be His children.
So, then, children: Cease and desist from your evil practices. You are called by God to receive a blessing from God. But, you must needs pursue peace with God if He is to bless you. Reject the evil urge. Run from temptation. But, don’t run aimlessly. You’ll trip and fall. No, accept the chance to do what is good, useful, honorable. Indeed, pursue every opportunity. If necessary, make the opportunity. Seek and pursue peace, but seek it with God. If we are at peace with God, we can then be at peace with man. If we are not at peace with God, then any apparent peace with have with men is so tenuous as to be utterly worthless anyway.
To end the point, I turn to the Amplified, which offers us a lengthy expansion on the thought of peace. “Let him search for peace (harmony; undisturbedness from fears, agitating passions, and moral conflicts) and seek it eagerly.” If we would be undisturbed by fears, we must be at peace with the One we rightly fear. If we wish to have an end to our agitating passions, then our eyes and our passions must be set upon the kingdom. If we would know an absence of moral conflict, then the only way is the Way of the righteous, the Way of Christ. Notice: It is not an end of conflict. Indeed, it is likely the beginning of greater conflict. But, it is the end of moral conflict, for the man who knows what is right and does it has no moral conflict to resolve.
I think I may as well wrap up this study today, ending with a brief consideration of verse 13. “Who is going to harm you if you are a zealot for good?” A zealot: Jesus had as companion one Simon the Zealot. The term is not without its negative connotations. Paul would write of the issue besetting his countrymen, that they had plenty of zeal for God, but were unguided by knowledge of God (Ro 10:2). Misdirected zeal is little more than lust, jealousy unchained. But, the zealot armed with knowledge of Christ? He is a rigorous adherent to the teaching of Christ, most eager for the Way of Christ, jealous of any rival claim to that place which Christ alone may occupy.
If you are a zealot for good, it can only be you are a zealot for Christ, eagerly pursuing the Way He has set you on. It can only be that you are wholeheartedly committed to being the best ambassador for Christ you can be, that you bear His Gospel with you, in you, everywhere you go, that you offer the great Good News of reconciliation with God with anybody who will listen long enough to hear it. Zealous pursuit of good. And, who defines good? God who is Good. But, if we are truly zealous for doing good, it’s going to take effort – constant effort.
So easily we slip back to idleness and worse. The zealot dares not. He is too eager to see the goodness of God made manifest to all. His every moment is dedicated to that end. But, he will not be ruled by his passions, even in this. No. It is zealousness directed by Knowledge. He is eager, but he will not get out ahead of his Commander in chief. He wants so very much for God to be fully known, but even more, he wants God’s will done. If God wills to remain less than fully known, this must take precedence over any contrary desire of the zealot. “Thy will be done. Nevertheless, Thy will be done.” That, too, takes constant effort, for God’s will is not always so nicely aligned with our own preferences. Thus, we return to the previous sections, and the necessity of subjection to our Lord and Master.
But, hear the promise of Scripture when we do so: “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Pr 16:7). See, that’s what we’ve been getting at. Pursue peace with God, and He will make even your enemies to be at peace with you. It’s peace with God that matters. It’s His definition of goodness that matters. If that is what matters to us, then whatever men may do to us really doesn’t matter.
Who is there to harm you? Well, if I’m measuring by this life only, there is much. I could find myself cut off from the means to support myself, find myself harassed by state powers, find myself threatened with bodily harm for insisting on the Truth of Christ. I could, like Peter would, face death with not the least opportunity of escape for no greater reason than that I was true to God. There is no greater reason! Don’t mistake the point here. The physical risks remain. God may call you into mortal danger in service to His cause. So be it! But, what harm can they do? Though you slay me, yet I shall see God! “Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. Yes, I tell you! Fear Him” (Mt 10:28, Lk 12:5)!
If we have our focus and our efforts fixed firmly on Him, there is no cause to fear ought else, whatever may come. If we will not fear Him, as has been said, we will find ourselves put to terror by everything else in life. Seek peace and pursue it. There’s a New Year’s resolution worth trying.
