New Thoughts: (01/05/14-01/11/14)
This passage presents some challenges for translation and application. It is one of those cases where the degree of expression possible in Greek simply doesn’t come across clearly to English. For example, we are presented with two if/then clauses here. In some sense, such a clause must present a cause and effect scenario. But, we are left with the question of just how applicable the whole clause is supposed to be.
In both of the cases before us, the verb in the if clause, the protasis for those inclined towards the technical terminology of language, is given in the Optative Mood. This mood, like the Subjective, presents the action as possible rather than necessary. However, the Optative Mood indicates that the action is even more uncertain, less probable. The particular if set before us is, then, a Fourth Class conditional. As such, it is set out as a theoretical possibility, an outcome set forth for the sake of argument. That is to say that the possibility of suffering for the sake of righteousness is put before us not as a normative experience, or even as a likely experience. It is the exception case. It could happen. It may indeed have happened already for some who were hearing this epistle. But, that doesn’t mean those who hadn’t suffered were somehow less authentic in their faith. Neither does it require us, on the basis of this passage alone, to suppose that all who persist in righteousness will suffer.
Now: I must balance that point with the testimony of our Lord and Savior. “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). There, the having of tribulation is set in the Indicative. It’s a statement of fact. You have it. You will have it. There is no conditional to soften the point, no Subjective Mood to leave it but one of several alternative possibilities. How, then, shall we resolve this? It would be tempting to suggest that the distinction lies in Peter’s inclusion of ‘for the sake of righteousness’. That would make it easy. You will have tribulations (Jesus), but they will primarily be for something other than righteous behavior (Peter). That, however, is too facile.
Jesus is extremely clear that, we being no longer of the world, the world will hate us as it hates Him. Under those circumstances, it should be the case that the tribulations we face come not as the natural response to our sins and failures, but rather to our success in properly presenting Christ. “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him. His own did not receive Him” (Jn 1:10-11). The servant of Christ can expect no better treatment than the Master received. They will hate us because they hate Him. Sin does not like exposure, prefers the shadows where it may persist.
So, then, while Peter, in this immediate context, presents suffering for righteousness as a theoretical, it seems to me that we must recognize that the theoretical is far more likely in this case than a Fourth Class conditional might lead us to believe. He may present the case ‘for the sake of argument’, but the argument has to do with the response, not the cause. We might just as well look upon the ‘if’ as being a ‘when’. Admittedly, this conclusion does not directly fit the syntactical parsing of the passage. But, in the larger scope of Scripture, it would seem to hold.
Another interesting aspect of the first conditional here, in verse 14, is that it takes the construct ei kai, where ei translates as if, and kai most commonly translates as and. But, kai is capable of a pretty broad range of nuance. Both Zhodiates and Thayer note the potential for a cumulative affect being presented by kai. It may serve to ‘annex what follows from something said before’. That would certainly seem to be the case here. Peter has just set out a series of examples as to what holiness looks like in particular relationships, particularly relationships between individuals of unequal power. We have the slave of a master, the wife of a husband. In these cases, one primarily holds the upper hand, and that one may very well not be a fellow believer. Coming to faith did not end the relationship, did not alter the character of the unbelieving member. What it did do is open the eyes of the believing member, and as such it set certain constraints on that one’s behavior going forward.
You, as the believer, ought to proceed from this point with a determination to do what is right however greatly you are wronged. That’s the sum of what Peter’s been saying for the last little while. We saw this wrapped up at the end of the last study. “Who is going to harm you for being so constantly zealous to do what is both right and beneficial” (1Pe 3:13)? Then comes verse 14. And if you do… Or, if I read it with an eye to the big picture: And when you do… We could go in a slightly different direction. Who is going to harm you for doing what is good? And what if they do? You are blessed! That certainly brings in the wider scope, and returns us to what Jesus taught. “Blessed are those who have been persecuted because of righteousness. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:10).
Peter then adds a brief reference to Isaiah 8:12. He only references the last bit of that passage, and having done so, leaves translators a bit uncertain how to parse his point. Is it “don’t fear what they fear” or is it “don’t let their attempts to scare you work”? The construct is similar to what he had previously said to the wives. “Do what is right without being frightened by any fear” (1Pe 3:6). As I commented then, this seems tautological on surface. What else would we be frightened by if not fear? And now we have the same basic thought again. The NASB, in this case, suggests, “Do not fear their intimidation.” Wuest has a similar take. “Do not be affected with fear of them by the fear which they strive to inspire in you.” Given the passage Peter is alluding to, I would have to take exception with that understanding.
Looking back to the passage from Isaiah, the first half of the passage runs thusly: “You are not to say ‘It is a conspiracy!’ in regard to all that this people call a conspiracy.” It then continues, “You are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. He shall be your fear and your dread” (Isa 8:12-13). Assuming Peter intends to convey the same message as Isaiah, it would seem better to hear this as, “Don’t fear what they fear.”
Well, what is it that they fear? I think we could make a general statement as regards pagan idolatries of the time, that what they feared was a conspiracy against them by the gods. Worship consisted largely of appeasement, with a large dollop of manipulation. If we don’t make proper offerings to the gods, they shall be against us. Our crops will fail, our wives will be barren, our houses will crumble in an earthquake. It is a conspiracy! And, it’s a conspiracy we are powerless to counter except we keep the offerings coming.
I could think back to Oral Roberts’ plea for money, for he had heard from God that unless so many thousands (or was it millions) were raised, he would be struck dead. My memory may not be entirely accurate. It’s been years. But, the story was all the rage at the time, proof that all these televangelists were nothing but frauds out to make a buck off the gullible. Count me amongst those who saw it as proof. But, I would have to append that account. Having once seen the man in person, I will say this: However misguided he was in that particular venture, there is something quite real to the man, as concerns his spirituality and faith in Christ. To be sure, the televangelist community has any number of frauds and hucksters, and they have cumulatively done great harm to the cause of Christ. But, then, I can say much the same about many Protestant denominations, many seminaries, many Catholics, many sect-of-your-choosing.
Don’t take on their fears. They are scared and they want you to be scared with them. They will point to your trials and seek to convince you that this must be coming about because the gods are angry with you. Indeed, why do you suppose they persecuted the Christians so? A large part of their motivation was concern for the idolatrous gods they thought they knew. Or, in some cases, it was concern for the lost profits for those who fed the idol industry. Think of the reaction of the makers of Artemis idols when Paul came to town. Oh, and that town? It’s right in the region to which Peter is writing.
Being blind to the Truth, they fear the reprisals of the Lie. They attack the bearers of Truth, who are doing nothing more than trying to live godly lives. If they made an honest assessment, they would have to acknowledge that what you are doing, how you are living your lives, is salutary. For some of them, it is even particularly profitable. The Christian ought to stand out as a model citizen, a model worker, a model boss, a model whatever role he has in life. Paul, you can be sure, was a model tentmaker. Peter, if he spent further time at the fishing business, was a model fisherman and a model businessman. He could be trusted. He would not overcharge for his wares nor lie about the freshness of his catch. He wouldn’t put his workers to unwarranted risks in pursuit of their trade. He wouldn’t send them out with improper equipment.
But, the world will not see that. They will see a threat to their way of life. Look around! We see it written up often enough. Oh! They will malign the Christian, belittle the Christian, mock the Christian, constrain the Christian’s rights. But, will they do the same to the Muslim? To the Hindu? To the atheist? Oh, no! They might fight back. And we have accepted this by and large. We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that the proper response is to just kneel down and take it. Maybe this is right. But, maybe it is another problem with translation.
Before I expand on that (assuming I do), let me finish with verse 14. Don’t let their fears become your fears. But, then Peter continues. “And do not be troubled.” Look. If I’ve been doing everything I know to do, keeping my nose clean, persisting in doing what the Bible tells me is the right thing to do, and still troubles come my way, still I am suffering anguish; what is my natural reaction going to be? I must be doing something wrong! I must have made a mistake. Maybe they were right after all, and I should toss off this new faith and return to the idols. Maybe Christianity is a false religion after all, and this Christ fellow was just a criminal like Rome’s treatment of him suggests.
Yes, if we assume suffering must come as a response to something we’re doing wrong, then suffering must trouble us. That term, trouble, what is it getting at? It suggests we are perplexed by events. Circumstance is causing us to have some doubts. Here is a thing that many a preacher has managed to promote, whether intentionally or not. When we tell the potential convert that all he need do is pray this little prayer and all his troubles will be over, we have done him no favor. His conversion is doubtful, and his troubles, far from being over, have likely just begun! In this world you will have troubles. It doesn’t like it when you walk out. The slave master is not pleased to have lost a slave. Makes no difference that he was paid for you.
If we look at that whole prosperity message, with its promises of health and wealth if you only believe, the same problem is there only worse. You are not guaranteed health or wealth. God may or may not opt to heal any particular affliction you happen to be suffering. To claim He has promised to do so is to set the sufferer up for a crash of faith. What happens when and if He chooses not to? Does that mean your faith was too weak, or worse, no faith at all? I tell you straight out, from my experience it is precisely those whose faith stands tall in the midst of chronic illness who present the greater hope, the clearer picture of God’s care. If I spend my whole Christian life pining after something that God has not ordained for me, how am I His servant? If I claim to be content in Him, and yet persist in badgering Him for a better life, am I His? The simple fact, and I’ve said it often enough, is that however many illnesses God may heal, up to and including a resurrection like unto that Lazarus experienced, I will still go to my grave unless He returns beforehand. Healing isn’t the point. Physical ailments, awful though they are, are temporary. Eternity hangs in the balance, and that ought to be a much greater concern. “Momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (2Co 4:17). That is the perspective of a man with his eyes on the eternal kingdom of God.
[01/06/14] So then, there are many things about life today that might prove troubling. What does this mean? It means life can be perplexing. If our faith is founded on something other than the true Gospel of Jesus the True Christ, they may cause doubts to arise. We see it in our youth today. Oh, they were raised in the church. How can it be that so many are gone astray? No doubt parents have asked this same question for generations. I’m sure my own parents wondered much the same. Could it be, though, that the answer lies within the church? We are inclined to blame it on outside influences, or simply the general foolishness of youth. But, if they knew and yet troubling circumstances caused doubts to arise to such degree that the doubts won out, surely this says something about what they were taught of the faith.
Such an answer would certainly explain not only this generation, but my own as well. The church I grew up in was not inclined to proclaim the Gospel; certainly not as the exclusive truth of God. No. We would have all manner of cultural application taught, maybe hear of our need to be more committed to actually helping society at large rather than trying to lead them to Christ. Christ was all but left out of it. Is it any wonder, then, that most any claim to spiritual insight was getting a hearing? Most any other religion we might have been exposed to seemed more in earnest, more real. What had I seen of Christianity, after all? I had seen infighting. I had seen rote attendance with no attention. I had seen the adults around me showing little more interest in the service of worship than myself; sleeping through everything that did not require physical response, going through the motions but wholly unaffected.
As for my own efforts, I don’t see that things were any better. Oh, to be sure I was deeply involved in the church – still am. I was getting into this period of disciplined study. But, was I imparting anything of what I learned? Was the church I was attending offering the Gospel, or something less? Sure, it was exciting. The Spirit was moving! Dreams and visions, tongues and interpretation, healing services, outreach to all races and nationalities. It was marvelous. But, was it explaining the Gospel, making it clear, making it real? Clearly not.
Came the time that I could not accept the lack of doctrine, the lack of understanding or even concern about the truths of God. It was clear that I needed to take those in my charge out from under such a ministry. But, it may have been too late in this one respect. My daughter did not have a clear picture of what Christianity was really all about. She had such a mixed up picture to try and learn from. Yes, there were many in that house who were absolutely in earnest as to their faith. There were also many who were more interested in signs and wonders and the latest thrill than in knowing the God Who Is. So, when Dad determined it was time to pull up roots, all she saw was an abandoning of friends. That, it seems, is all that had registered of church. It was about friendships, and friendships loom large in here theology. There is no greater crime, I suspect, in her book than to abandon a friendship.
She is in part a product of the age. The post-modern world we live in doesn’t have much room for truth in general, let alone exclusive, absolute, unequivocal Truth. We have an entire generation of Pilates, asking, “what is truth?” And nobody’s giving them an answer; at least not inside the Church. There are plenty of professors and the like who offer their take on the truth, and do so with conviction. But, in the house of the God of Truth, we have too often been contented to offer Christianese platitudes. I may very well be doing little more than that in this paragraph. I hope not, but I see it as a distinct possibility.
If we have failed as parents, physical or spiritual, it is in this: We have not declared the whole truth, explained the whole truth, set forth a defense for the hope that is in us in reasoned accounting. We have simplified. We have reduced much of Scripture to the level of fairy tales. They are stories we tell. But, we assume the audience too young to be interested in the explanation. Or, faced with a roomful of disinterested teens, we have simply given up on them. They don’t want to hear it, and we can’t be bothered to cast our pearls before such swine. And off we go into the sunset feeling righteous about ourselves. A year passes, two, three, and we wonder: Why are our youth not following in our footsteps?
There is a twofold response that we ought have to this situation. First, we must take to heart the very admonition that is under consideration. Don’t let the stuff they fear cause you to fear. Don’t let perplexity and doubt choke out your own faith. How, after all, will you ever help them escape the trap they’ve stepped into if you’ve joined them there? Look: From my own life I draw forth the greatest cause for hope. He saved me! God took pity on my wandering, wayward ways. Very much in spite of myself, He called, and He called in precisely the fashion that was likely to lead me to answer. Oh! The misadventures I was anxious to try! Oh! The miseries I happily let myself in for! Is it any wonder that I see my daughter displaying many of the same tendencies? Would I have listened to me at her age? No. No, I wouldn’t. But, I know this as well: With age comes wisdom. With growth comes retrospection. I can look back, listen back, and recognize the pointers that were set in my way, ignored at the time, but no less true for that.
One of the strongest memories I have – and it comes to mind often – is that coworker of mine back in my twenties who said with simple conviction that as liberal as I was in my thinking at the time, I would become more conservative as I grew up. It sounded absolutely ludicrous at the time. No way! My convictions are strong, dude. I mean, look at these conservatives! Bozos one and all! But, here I am these many years later, and I discover he was quite right. I find it odd that my brother, who was the more conservative one, at least in his twenties, has become quite liberal in his later years. What’s up with that? How can it be?
So, I speak what I can when I can. I recognize that it is likely to be falling on deaf ears now. But, I recognize myself in my child. Those deaf ears are listening, filing away. She may ignore what I offer, but with age comes wisdom. And, far greater than that, God is persistent. If He has determined that she shall be saved then saved she shall be. It would seem she must have her season wandering the desert, but it will not always be thus. And, God forbid, should it be that He has determined that she shall not be saved, there’s little enough I can do about that other than pray that perhaps in His mercy He might alter His forecast.
The second aspect of responding to this situation lies in repenting of our own ways. If we have not been teaching the real Gospel to our kids, let that stop now. If we have been satisfied with telling the stories, never quite getting to the application part, let that stop now. I dare say, this doesn’t stop with the kids. We have plenty of adults in the church today who have no better grasp on the Gospel truth than do the youth. We have plenty who have never considered the implications of Scripture, maybe don’t even read it outside the walls of the Church. Oh, they carry a Bible, because that is expected, after all. Got to keep up appearances. But, that’s all they’ve got.
I am perplexed myself by the fact that the Church by and large is so disinclined to speak the urgent Truth. I look back on the sort of preaching that was once common, the easy example being the sermons of Jonathon Edwards, or maybe Charles Spurgeon and I wonder what became of it. Why are we so disinclined to make clear to our charges just how terrifying a future lies ahead? Why do we refuse to spell out in no uncertain terms just how sinful we all are, and how certain is our just punishment from the One who created us? Why do we present the lifesaver to a bunch of folks who don’t even know they are in danger? And, why should it surprise us that so few bother to lay hold of that lifesaver? There is that old song of Charlie Peacock’s about how you don’t ask a drowning man if he wants to be saved. But, there’s a corollary to that. You don’t offer to save a guy who’s just walking down the sidewalk. He doesn’t see anything to be saved from, and is hardly likely to respond to your offer as you would have him do. If we will not explain the utter depravity of a man to himself, and in such clarity as leaves him no way to avoid the ugly truth, then the Gospel we offer in answer is unlikely to find a hearing. It is unlikely to really be the Gospel.
Back, now, to the matter of fear; and let me return us to that passage Peter is quoting. “Don’t dare call it a conspiracy! These people call just about anything a conspiracy, but don’t you go being afraid of the things they fear. There’s no cause for dread in that stuff. No, it is the Lord of hosts you should deem holy. He shall be your fear and your dread” (Isa 8:12-13). This time around, focus on the last sentence. Jesus echoes the sentiment with great clarity. “Don’t fear those who may be able to kill the body, but cannot touch the soul. No! Fear Him who alone is able to destroy both body and soul in hell” (Mt 10:28).
The sorts of things that get the attention of people and cause them no end of distress may not be the sorts of things we need really be concerned about. Go back to the Sermon on the Mount. “Don’t get all worked up about this life, wondering what you’re going to have to eat, where you’re going to find clothes. Life is about far more than this temporary physical existence.” Yes, I am paraphrasing heavily, but you can certainly go read the original (Mt 6:25-34). “Don’t get all bothered about this sort of stuff. That’s the focus the Gentiles have, yes, but you? You should know by now, your Father in heaven knows your needs.” The implication, of course, that if He knows your needs, He will assuredly see to them. If He’s going to bother Himself with birds and straw and bugs, don’t you suppose He will see to you as well? Of course He will. So, what to do? “Seek His kingdom and His righteousness, knowing He’s already seen to the rest.” Don’t get all worked up about what lies ahead in the future. Like you could do anything about it, anyway! “Tomorrow will care for itself.” It’s in His hands just like you. And today will present you with more than enough challenges to keep you occupied. Eyes on the prize, brother, not on the roadblocks!
Don’t be troubled. Don’t get all anxious about where life is heading, how society is rotting, what is becoming of my country. God is yet on the throne, and He reigns over every nation of the earth. If I might steal from Larry Norman, “If there’s life on other planets, then I’m sure He’s been there, too.” Been there? He’s still there! Just as He’s still here. And the one thing we do know about the future is more than sufficient to answer every concern: God wins, and He’s my Daddy. What possible cause for concern can there be when we know this is the case?
That, I think, puts us in position to move on to Peter’s application. If we do not respond in fear, how do we respond? “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” Well, that sounds lovely, but it also sounds a bit like that Christianese that so plagues us. It’s a platitude and nothing more, right? No! This is a key point! Sanctify Christ as Lord. My! It seems like we need to delve into every term apart from ‘as’, to really grasp the significance of what Peter has just said. After all, we have little more than foggy notions as to just what any of those terms really means.
Sanctify Him. What? Shall we set Him apart for His own exclusive use? That makes no sense at all! We certainly aren’t in any position to purify Christ. He is already perfectly pure, always has been, always will be. It is we who need purifying. If we come to the idea of veneration, we at least begin to approach the proper perspective, but then, veneration doesn’t have that much meaning to us, either. Honor Him. Grant Him His due. Thayer, I think, gets me closest to a useful working definition in this case. “Acknowledge Him as venerable.” Grant that He is Who He Is. Grant that His claims on you are exactly as He states them to be. Get this in your head in such a fashion that it cannot be dislodged, and then respond as He deserves – as He alone deserves. He is the Supreme Being! There is nothing in all the universe – and if there is such a thing as the multiverse, in all the multiverse – that did not come into being through Him alone, that does not continue its existence solely at His discretion. This greatest of all, this Big Bang live and in person, has produced your adoption papers, called you son or daughter. What does that mean to you? What must it mean to you?
Sanctify whom? Sanctify Christ. Christ – Messiah – the Anointed One. Well, I’m not Jewish, what do I know of messiahs? The world knows of messiahs. It offers us any number of them to choose from, every last one of them a miserable, worthless disappointment. There is one Messiah, that One anointed by God to the purpose. And, what purpose might that be? Why, He is purposed with our atonement! He has taken on my sins, your sins, all of them! He has paid all of our fines in the courts of heaven. Our sins, from the very first one, earned us death. And the death we earned was not simply the sweet surcease of the grave. Oh, no! That’s too easy. That’s an escapist fantasy. No, death goes on. And on, and on. Death is forever, but it’s not a forever of which we shall have no awareness. Rather it’s a perpetual awareness of just how sinful our sins truly were, of just how great a Savior we opted to neglect, of just how just is the punishment we shall spend all eternity experiencing in recompense for our sins against an infinite and perfectly holy God.
But, comes the Christ! Comes the One and Only Son of God, the one way given to man by which he may be saved! Yes! Sanctify Him! Get His infinite worth set deep in your soul. Acknowledge Him as the Way, the Truth, the Life, and you, my friend may know Life in yourself. Yes, you, too, can come to recognize that even should you die, yet you live, and you live to this Christ Whom God appointed.
Then, we come to Lord. We don’t merely acknowledge that He came, or stop at accepting that He paid our fines to heaven’s court. We acknowledge the critical fact that He is the King of kings, the Lord of lords. He is the President of presidents who need never stand for election, for He is the Elect. He reigns over all, and He reigns forever. Most critically just at the moment, He reigns over you. This is where Peter is driving us: Get it through your thick head that this Christ, this Savior, reigns and rules not over you, but in you. He is in charge, not you. He is the captain of your ship, not you. He has the right of decision, not you. He, after all, redeemed you. You were in chains, though you didn’t recognize it at the time. You were destined to be a slave in perpetuity. But, One came to pay the price for your freedom from those chains. That is not to say you have no master. Far from it! Every man has his master, whether he recognizes that it is so or not. You were bought with great price, and the One who paid that great price has right of your life. He is in charge. He is the One Who can kill both body and soul. Oh, yes! Fear Him. But fear Him knowing His great love for you. It is not a cringing fear of reprisal. It is the awed reverence for One Whose love is so great as to overcome even your own hatred.
Now, then: If you’ve got that settled, that this Anointed, Appointed Redeemer of your soul is set as Lord and King in you, it’s time we move on to the implications that flow from that. Peter presents the most immediate implication in the remainder of verse 15. Be ready to explain your faith, how it is that you have hope when all around you seem to be in dread of events. A striking part of that instruction from Peter is that we twice come upon the term logos. It is there in the term translated ‘make a defense’, apologian, and again in ‘give an account’, logon. Logos is familiar to us, particularly as John’s unique term for Christ as the Word of God. In speaking of the Word of God, he is indicating Christ as the expression of God’s Wisdom, the Wisdom of God made manifest and alive in human form. To be clear, it is not just the form of man, as though he were some phantasmagoric pseudo-human. No, He is entirely human and yet simultaneously entirely God: the God-man. But, in Him we are granted to see God. In Him, we have God’s apologia for Himself, if you will.
That logos is so intrinsically tied to the effort of proclaiming the Gospel, proclaiming our faith, should catch our attention. It is well and good to be able to relate our conversion experiences, to point to the clear change of character that has come about in us by the inward work of the Spirit of God Himself, by His indwelling presence. But, it is a thing to be presented clearly, logically, in a fashion comprehensible to those who hear us.
As a bit of an aside, this factor of Christ the Logos of God ought to underpin our understanding of Scripture. Scripture is, after all, God-breathed. It is the extensive account of this very Christ Who Is the Logos. It is the record of His words and His works, His apologia. This being the case, we ought to expect that Scripture is intended to be comprehended. It presents a logical case for faith. To be sure, there are mysteries to the faith, and there are matters God does not deign to explain to us. They are His to know, and the knowledge is His to impart or not as He deems fit. But, what He explains is meant to be comprehended. He does not hide Himself away from us, making us labor long and hard to parse out the hidden meanings. He stands exposed before us in order that we might know Him as He truly is, and might worship Him as He truly is.
Our efforts ought be no less clear. This is where our tendency for speaking in Christian code words really becomes a problem. It is in many ways a simple byproduct of our humanity. Go into any workplace and you will encounter some brand of jargon known only to those who work in the same trade or on the same project. We engineers are particularly prone to the habit. Every project has its own vocabulary, and if it is not explained, those new to the project are left to contemplate the incomprehensible. When we allow this habit to attach to our evangelical efforts we do our hearers no favors. We speak in terms whose meaning may be barely understood by us, shorthand references to gigantic concepts. But, those listening to us have no frame of reference. We speak of grace. What do our hearers know of that? If they attach no more than the sense of grace one might gain from observing, say, the life of the court of Louis XV, then God giving us grace comes across as meaning little more than that He has taught us how to walk with gliding step, to speak with honeyed tongue. If we speak of the hope that is in us, but don’t explain the nature of that hope clearly and cogently, then our hearers hear about nothing more than wishful thinking, and why should our wishful thoughts be of any more value than the next man’s?
There is a reason we are called to give a well-reasoned account. We are presenting the unimaginable. We are presenting the God Who Is Who He Is, and not generally Who we would have Him to be. We present a God who is entirely unlike the gods men have been inclined to follow. He is not some force of nature to be appeased lest we die. He is not some genie granting our every desire. He is not an impersonal, unknowable force so far beyond our ken as to barely register on our consciousness. He is our Creator, our Lord, our King. And, as we ourselves need to be reminded of the significance of His lordship, so too do our hearers. As a society, we long since rejected the idea of any man being lord and king over us. But, there remains one Man who has that right by very nature. It takes a lot to bring us to the point of accepting that. It’s not going to come about just because we say He’s a nice guy. It’s not going to come about because we describe Him as a good administrator.
Face it, and we will hopefully touch on this at more length later: There are times when the evidence of the world around us hardly seems to jibe with the concept of God being good at all. It is one of the great complaints of the atheists. If this is what God does, He is not good, and if He is not good, I refuse to acknowledge Him. But, that presupposes that we are in any position to properly determine what is good and what is not. As was asked pointedly in an article I was reading the other day, if we are the determiners of good and evil, on what basis do we determine? What is our standard? Most critically, if that standard is not something as immutable as God, how is it any basis for measurement at all?
We have a department of weights and measures. We have carefully calibrated items which are used to ensure the accuracy of those tools by which we account for time, distance, mass, and so on. These items are chosen not only for their accuracy but also for their immutability. We have clocks galore by which to measure the passing of time, but we all know that over time, the several clocks in our houses will come to disagree on just what time it is. Why, only a few months ago we set every clock in the house to agree. And now? The kitchen is three minutes behind the den, and the den is a good ten minutes askew from the bedroom. We must resort to a more accurate reference by which to determine which (if any) is right.
Ask a builder or a cabinet maker what happens if one uses a different tape measure for one measurement than for another. Inaccuracies creep in because the two measures, however carefully made, differ ever so slightly. The greater the distance measured, the more those inaccuracies alter the result. One needs a more consistent, unchanging, single point of reference by which to judge the accuracy of a particular measuring tool.
Our measuring of good and evil is no different. Left to our own devices and opinions, we will swiftly arrive at some matter in which your measure of good differs from mine. Whether we choose personal opinion, societal norms, historical trends, or any other reference you might choose, we shall still find cases where the results differ. If, then, we are to have meaningful, universal definitions of good and evil, we must have a reference that is stable, immutable. Apart from God, no such standard can be had. If this God Who Is the final determinant of what is good and what is not is unknowable, then we are really at a loss. We cannot know what is good and what is evil because we cannot know Him Who defines the terms. The good news is that we can know Him, and He does declare to us what is good and what is evil. The bad news is that by and large we still think we know better than He does.
So, then, give a well-reasoned, well thought out, and logically presented explanation for the hope that is in you. We have an entire category of Christian endeavor dedicated to this cause: apologetics. Here we again hit a term that requires explanation, for if you speak of giving an apology for faith, most folks are going to expect you to indicate that you are sorry for foisting your personal belief system on them. This is no call for expressing regret, though! It is the call to explain, and to explain in a fashion fit to be understood.
One thinks of Paul’s discussion regarding the gifts of the Spirit and their proper use. He speaks of the purpose of tongues versus the purpose of prophecy, and what their impact is likely to be on the unbeliever come into your midst. I would take it a step further for our present day. It is clear, if one looks at the world stage, that there are regions of the world where those things we speak of as signs and wonders seem to happen with far greater regularity. There is a reason why Pentecostalism and Charismatic faith tend to make greater inroads into, say, Africa or South America than do the more conservative Protestant denominations. It is, I think, because they are more suited to reach that population. There, one meets a mindset that is more inclined to accept such evidence as evidence. Come to Western civilizations, to Europe or the US, and the general populace is disinclined to accept that sort of evidence as legitimate. It is met with great skepticism. It is nearly impossible, by and large, for such activities to even gain a hearing. The flamboyance and generally weak theological underpinning of many of its practitioners, combined with their propensity for widespread broadcast, have not helped the situation. If you present as fake, you will be perceived as fake.
For this culture one is generally going to have more success presenting the Gospel in the same way Paul, Martin Luther, Augustine, and Jonathan Edwards presented it. Explain it. Explain it with arguments that leave no room for an alternative conclusion. Reading through Romans, as I will be doing again this year, as Table Talk is once more going through the book, one sees Paul doing far more than simply saying, “Here’s what I believe”, or, “Here’s what happened to me.” Indeed, what happened to me barely enters into it. No. Paul, as we find him doing elsewhere, has taken time to learn the ways of those to whom he addresses himself. He is familiar with how they think, what they hold as a world-view. As such, he has a good sense of the arguments they will raise against faith, and is prepared in advance to answer those arguments in sound fashion, in a way that those who raise the arguments have good reason to accept.
As we seek to reach the lost around us, we must likewise recognize the culture as it is. Here, we often put ourselves at disadvantage by our tendency to try and avoid the corrupting influences of culture. Good intentions, to be sure, but it leaves us less capable of making ourselves understood. I would expect about as much success trying to explain the details of chip design and verification to a sales clerk. The set of shared knowledge is so miniscule as to leave the topic totally incapable of being discussed to any purpose.
We in the church have largely set ourselves in the same position, at least some of us. We have cut ourselves off from old friends in many cases. We had good reason to do so. But, we forgot the call to reach the lost somehow. We’re too busy defending our castle of faith and making sure no outsider gets a foothold. For my part, years ago we made the decision not to have television (or even radio for that matter) in the house. Never mind the futility of thinking this would somehow prevent the world’s perspective from influencing our daughter. There is this other aspect. Having thus cut ourselves off from the world, we are that much less capable of speaking to those in the world in their own language. Now, I have no particular intention of altering course on this topic. The occasions when I see what passes for entertainment today, I find it thoroughly aggravating and not the least bit entertaining. It has taken low-brow and defined it down to the point that it should have to dig for hours to make its way back to the level of dirt. But, in absence of that input, I must needs find other means of maintaining sufficient connection with my culture as is needful for communication.
I see how Paul was able to use these cultural aspects in presenting the Gospel. He saw the monument built to an unknown god and did not stand there and rail against their idolatry. He did not condemn them, or seek to tear down that particular idol. No. He took it as a launching point to present the God Who Is. He commended them, indeed, for their piety. But, then, he moved on. He pointed out that they did not know this god they sought to honor, and then said, “Let me introduce you to Him!” Dealing with the Cretans, Paul does not simply write off their culture as irrelevant, but rather takes note that even their poets, their most honored members, agreed with the assessment of God as concerned their character.
Look, even those who sit in great darkness occasionally see flashes of light. Read through the philosophers of ancient Greece, and one will find a surprisingly large portion of the material aligns with the teaching of Jesus. To be sure, there are plenty of points to be found which disagree, but where it agrees, on what basis shall we reject it? Truth will remain truthful even when spoken by the greatest of liars. The Scriptures were no less accurate for having rolled off the tongue of the devil. It as the application that was off. One can listen to NPR and occasionally find great truths spoken. It may be inadvertent. It is unlikely to come about in those programs that actually intend to explore great truths. But, things are being said, if you have ears to hear. Talk radio may have something true to say, however irritating the presentation may be. It’s not the tone and the presentation that we must needs discern, but the message. And the message must ever be measured against the Word. If it aligns, praise God! If it does not, toss it.
Let me move on to the qualifications Peter sets on this effort at logical presentation: “With gentleness and reverence.” Here we arrive once again at a term which is subject to being completely misinterpreted. We see this call to gentleness and suppose this means we put up no fight. We play the doormat. Other translations give us the word meekness, and that’s even worse. We place no value in meekness. Men ought to be forthright, bold, decisive. We see meekness and think milquetoast. We think emasculation. And we even bring this miscomprehension of terms to our image of Jesus. Jesus meek and mild. He’s a harmless little lamb, wouldn’t hurt a fly. He’s incapable of anger, so loving and meek is He. Never mind that we have to skip vast swathes of the account to arrive at this picture. We heard John say, “God is Love”, and baby, we latched onto that for all we were worth! Forget that wrath stuff. That’s for the Old Covenant! We’re in the New Covenant now, and God is love. No anger possible.
But, that would seem to miss the point almost entirely. Have a good read of John when he encounters those who are preaching falsehood to the faithful. Get a good sense of Paul when he is countering sinful activities brought into the house of God. These are not meek men. These are lions. And rightly so! The Lamb of God is the Lion of Judah. There is a place for anger, for wrath, for a defense by offense. But, it is not every place. It is not first place. Be angry, yet sin not (Eph 4:26). Don’t let it fester, and don’t let it be undeserved. Save your anger for those things that anger God.
Zhodiates takes note of the sense Aristotle assigned to this term we have translated as meekness or gentleness. It is not the pacifistic response we might suppose. He describes it as ‘the middle way of anger’. What does that mean? It means that on the one hand we don’t allow ourselves to become angry without reason (or, I might say, to allow anger to displace reason); but on the other hand, we don’t thoroughly suppress anger, allowing every offense and wrong to pass without comment. There is a right and reasonable place for anger. When false men seek to infiltrate the faithful, and do their utmost to lead believers astray, it is right to be angry. When civil authorities demand that we abandon the tenets of faith because they have become inconvenient or unpopular, it is right to be angry.
But, can I tell you when it is very much wrong to be angry? When giving a reasoned defense of the hope you have! Get back into the setting Peter has laid out. Here are people who are scared, terrified by events. They live in fear. Their every move is calculated based on fear. And they see you, and you are unafraid. This may just produce consternation, but is more likely to give rise to jealousy and even anger. Why aren’t you as afraid as the rest of us? Maybe you’ve been bought off! Maybe you’re part of it (whatever ‘it’ is at the moment). How dare you not be as upset as the rest of us?
Answering fearful anger with anger isn’t going to get you anywhere. Answering in anger is, quite frankly, going to undermine the explanation. Anger isn’t a response from hope. It is a response from threat. It is as if you were admitting your hope and peace are but a façade, and you’re really just as afraid as they are after all. In other words, your God is no different than theirs. Either He is as powerless as you claim these idols are, or you are in the same relationship to Him as they are to their gods: Just trying to appease that which you cannot control.
It is challenging to draw out the proper sense of Peter’s instruction here without going on at great length. In fairness, it seems to prove challenging to me to discuss any aspect of Scripture any more without going on at great length. Weymouth makes the attempt. “Yet argue modestly and cautiously, keeping your consciences free from guilt.” You know well enough that if you succumb to anger in the course of debating any matter, let alone something so critical as the Gospel, you have as good as thrown in the towel. You have lost, and not because you were incorrect. You have lost because you lost it.
Try Paul’s instruction as he gave it to Timothy. “Correct the opposition with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them to repent and be lead into knowledge of the truth” (2Ti 2:25). Notice the two prongs of intent. The intent is to correct. Not to berate or belittle, but to correct. Show them where their reasoning has gone wrong so that they may reason correctly. The intent, the hope, is that having been thus corrected, they may come (God willing) to the Truth. That is to say, they may become believers.
In our fallen natures, we are inclined to want nothing more than to win the argument. As such, we fall into a tendency to just verbally club our opponent over the head. We replace debate with insult. We cast aspersions on the character of our opponent, as if ours were so terribly fine, as if character trumps truth. We will, as so often happens, find some way to compare our opponent to Hitler. That has happened so often that it is now deemed an automatic default on argument to drop back to such an attack. You have lost right there. We ought to recognize that just as soon as we shift from presenting a reasoned defense and account of our position to mudslinging and anger we have likewise defaulted. We’ve thrown the game. We’ve lost the right to speak further. That is what Peter is driving at. If, as Paul advises, and as Peter has indicated previously, we have in mind the winning of our opponent to faith, rather than just the triumph of our position, this is a great safeguard against that anger which will derail all our efforts.
Be prepared under any and all circumstances to give a well-organized and cogent explanation for the certain hope that is so clearly yours; but do it without become irate. Do it respectfully. That’s about the best I can do with it. The overall point would seem to be that our defense of the Gospel must be rigorous without becoming rancorous. That general advice comes across through many passages from the Epistles. Don’t go in for pointless arguments. Don’t fall into their games of genealogical proofs. Don’t be dragged off course or off point. Keep it cogent and coherent. And, by all means remain respectful. Belittling the one you are trying to lead to the Light is hardly likely to incline them towards listening more openly.
[01/08/14] Coming to the end of verse 16, Peter reminds us of an outward aspect of the hope that is in us. It is the reason for our care in presenting the case for the Gospel: That our good behavior in Christ might bring our accusers to be ashamed of their slanders. But, it is assuredly more than that. It is the hope that, having become ashamed, they might come to repentance, might come to faith as we have come to faith.
As to this good behavior, the CJB strengthens the connection to Christ, speaking of it as, “the good behavior flowing from your union with the Messiah.” It puts one in mind of Jesus’ response to Peter’s question as to who could be saved. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Mt 19:26). If we are offering arguments relying on our own strength and wit, we will surely fall into being argumentative, returning tit for tat. But if, as we are instructed to do, we rely on the Holy Spirit to give us the words to speak? Ah! Then something wonderful happens. Then our words are seasoned with salt, gracious words and convicting. Does this guarantee results? No. The results are God’s to decree. Our part is to speak as God gives us speech. We sow. But, it is for Him to decide how the garden grows.
That same sovereign determination reigns over our own situation. And that returns us, with Peter, to the matter of suffering. “If God has in fact willed that you should suffer”, as the CJB renders verse 17, better it should be unjust suffering in response to just action than just suffering in response to sinful action. Better? Only in that language requires this form of comparative when two options are presented. In reality, that comparative is in the superlative degree. As such, it is best, not just better.
Here, once again, we are presented a fourth class conditional. It is a point raised for sake of argument, not a cause and effect. Yet, we must understand from the wider scope of Scripture that tribulations, persecutions and suffering are likely to come our way when we are true to the Gospel. Given that, I would not seek to discount this to the point of hearing, “In the unlikely event that God should will that you suffer.” Taking in the larger picture of God’s sovereignty and providence, if you are suffering, it is necessarily God’s will. If you are undergoing any experience, good or bad (as you measure such things), it is necessarily God’s will. He Whose control of creation is such that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will is certainly managing your affairs, whom He calls His own.
The intent here is to help us with our perspective. The topic hasn’t changed, nor has the overall thrust of Peter’s message. Don’t let these trials trouble you. It’s God at work. Now, it’s certainly worthwhile to do some self-assessment, see if these things are coming your way as a call to repent of your own sins, as a disciplinary measure. It’s possible. God disciplines those He loves, for He is a good and caring Father. But, either way, understand this: The difficulties you face are not out of God’s will. They are the outworking of God’s will. And God is good. His plans for you are for your good. Ergo, these trials are for your good. Look, then, for the good in them. Seek out His purpose rather than bemoaning your lot.
Is it unjust? Have you done nothing to deserve such treatment? Good! You are blessed (verse 14)! God is setting you before your tormentors as a living apology for His goodness. Persist in doing what is right, what is benevolent, what is beneficial not just for yourself, but indeed, for those very ones who persecute you. Bless them and revile not. Don’t let your wounded pride cause you to respond in kind. Don’t take vengeance into your own hands. It is not yours, it is His. If He chooses vengeance, rest assured you shall be avenged. If He chooses mercy, why then, you have gained a brother! And which is to be more desired?
See this? It is His plan for me that is unfolding, even if I don’t care for the present details of that plan. It is His good purpose for me that I am undergoing, not some evil attack that slipped by His guard. His plans towards me, for good and not for evil, are being worked out even in this. There is rest for the troubled soul. He is in control. However out of control events seem to be, He is in control. However devastating these present trials, He is yet in control, and His plans remain for my good, for my thriving. There is a reason to this. I may not see it now, but I shall see it in the fullness of time.
It is somewhat surprising that Peter doesn’t draw our attention to the example of Joseph. Joseph, left in a pit to die, was unlikely to be thinking, “Boy! I am so blessed!” Joseph, sold off to slavers, wasn’t likely to be offering prayers of thanks to his God for his unexpected good fortunes. Joseph in prison didn’t think himself experiencing the best of all possible worlds. But, he did hold faithful. He knew God. He knew that whatever was going on at the moment, God remained on the throne and would see him through. I dare say he questioned the plan on any number of occasions. But, he never questioned that there was a plan. And when that plan eventually unfolded, he saw clearly just how good God’s plan was. All that he had been through, painfully unjust though it was, had brought about this wonderful preservation of life, had set him in position to bless the very ones who had thought to destroy him.
Joseph is hardly the only example we can observe. Moses no doubt wondered at the response of those Jewish slaves he had sought to rescue from their abusive guard. He must have known times of feeling abandoned by God as he roamed the wild places herding animals. A prince in the courts of Egypt, and this is what I have fallen to? He certainly knew his frustrations as he led this ungrateful people through the wilderness, fielding all their complaints, watching their sullen, rebellious behavior. God! I’m sick of them! You deal with them, I’ve had enough. And, I cannot but imagine he was deeply disappointed to arrive at the very borders of the Promised Land only to hear, “Sorry, not for you.” But, he held to the God he knew was good, and trusted in him.
And so down through the entire history of redemption. Take Jesus Himself. The anguish He expressed in the Garden of Gethsemene was entirely real. He knew the plan, and yet He would gladly have seen the plan change were it possible. “Nevertheless, Thy will be done.” Why? Because Thy will is perfect and perfectly good. His anger is but for a moment, but His favor is for a lifetime! Weeping may last for the night, but shouts of joy come in the morning (Ps 30:5). For that joy set before Him, He endured the cross (Heb 12:2).
So, then. What befalls you befalls you by the will of God. Wherefore should you complain of it, as if God is being unrighteous? Far be it from you! There is no unrighteousness in Him, but rather, His lovingkindness endures forever. If, then, his purpose requires this momentary suffering, how shall you respond? Persist in doing good in spite of circumstance. Be determined to walk in righteousness whatever the cost.
Let me take a brief lexical detour here. We are given a contrast between being a good-doer and being an evil-doer. In both cases, the text offers no direct object to indicate what that good or evil action is. As such, Zhodiates notes, it is the mode of action that is in sight, the quality of action, more so than the result. It is not a call to act in a way that is profitable to others. It is a call to act in the way that is right, ever mindful that it is God’s prerogative to define what is right. Revenge might seem right in our own eyes, but God has made it sufficiently clear that it is not. Casting aspersions on our afflicters may make us feel better about ourselves, but it is not right.
Here, then, is a call for careful deliberation as to how we respond. Don’t give the flesh rein. Don’t react. Seek God’s purpose. Seek His direction. Let His character and instruction form your response. I would add to this, watch your attitude, your motivation. Knowing that all we experience comes as the outworking of God’s will for us can leave us merely resigned to events. The Greeks had their concept of fate. If this is what is fated, there’s no sense trying to change things. If it is fated that I shall commit these terrible crimes, why resist it? But such a view exceeds the Scriptural picture of Providence. Yes, it is true that no man is going to come to Christ apart from the Father calling him, and yes, it is true that the vessel He has created for wrath will assuredly be destroyed for His glory. But, we remain moral agents. We remain culpable for our actions, our decisions. We are yet called to repent and turn to Him, and if we will not do so, though this is truly the outworking of His will, it is also an act of our will, and we must bear the cost.
So: You suffer in the present? Don’t be resigned to it. But, be consecrated to God, determined to remain true to the course He has set forth for you. If it must be that you suffer, so be it. It is to God’s glory. You may not see how, yet you can see it through. Insist on walking upright, righteous, doing what is good no matter what. Let His will determine your course, and let your persistently good response alter circumstance.
We all know plenty of folks who are, in their own opinions at least, victims of circumstance. They will excuse their behavior on the basis of a cruel childhood. They will pass off their having effectively given up on life as being the result of some long ago slight or failure to act. “I cannot change.” We have rock anthems proclaiming the very fact! The ever-popular Free Bird shouts it to the heavens! “Lord knows, I can’t change.” But, it’s a lie. God knows you can. He knows because He has made it possible. He has not only called us to repentance, He’s made repentance possible. He has sent His Holy Spirit into the world, into those He has called, so that they can change.
Oh! How I praise God for our ability to look back across our lives! Sometimes that change is so very slow and we are so very aware of how much remains in need of changing. Stuck in the present, we are easily convinced that we aren’t really changing. We are still who we have always been. Oh, certain habits have gone by the wayside. But, we could write that off to growing up. There are, after all, these other habits. We gave up the drinking and drugs and whatnot, but we still curse like a sailor. We learned to stop insulting everybody and anybody, but we still tend to view the law as not applying to us. We’ve made selective progress, but the many places where progress has not been made convince us the progress we’ve made is an anomaly.
But, we can look back. We can see who we were and who we are now. If God is truly at work in us, we look back and recognize what we would be now had we been left to our own devices. How can we do so without being set back on our heels in wonder? Look what the Lord has done! Who could imagine that I would have become what I am? Who amongst my childhood companions would suppose the me of my rebirth would ever emerge from so unpromising a stock? I, in my weakness, could not possibly have caused this. I could not have even worked up the interest in trying. I was perfectly happy with miserable old me. But, now? Now I am a new creation, and I would have it no other way. Now, I rejoice in what my Lord has achieved, and I sorrow only in that His work in me is not yet complete. Oh! That He might work faster. Oh! That I might even now be already arrived at that end product He has in view. But, His will is not yet. His will is that I continue, that I persist in doing good as He empowers me to do so.
His will also requires that I undertake this effort with an understanding that is often painfully incomplete. I cannot look at the issue of suffering without looking at the questions it raises. We hear them posed often enough by the unbelievers around us. If God is so good, how can He promote these evil actions? Why does He allow it, let alone determine it? Or, from a somewhat more amoral perspective, if God has determined this evil deed shall be done, how is it evil, He being good? Surely, I must be off the hook for my actions since my actions are herded along by His providence.
These are indeed questions that are exceedingly difficult to answer. It may well be they are impossible to answer in my limited knowledge. But, they are worthy to be wrestled with. If I cannot answer them to the satisfaction of the unbeliever, I must surely answer them to my own satisfaction. I would not be the first to do so, nor would I be the last. In fact, thinking across various things I have read, it seems rather unlikely that I shall arrive at any conclusive declaration on the matter. I may well have to settle for, “I don’t know.” But, I know this: God is good, and God is in control. I may not perceive His purposes in every aspect of experience, but I can know it is there and it is good. I dare not, however, let that knowledge short-circuit the questions.
Traditionally, the answer to these questions lies in the doctrine of concurrence. This doctrine has its roots in the Scholastic movement, but has wide acceptance. At root, it seeks to explain how it can be that God, being omnipotent and the determiner of all being, is unopposable as to His will and yet man remains possessed of free will and morally culpable for his choices. While such a doctrine is never stated explicitly in Scripture, it is often implied by the events unfolded therein. It effectively declares that nothing in all existence occurs outside the knowledge of God. He is omniscient, and all-wise, and it is in Him – and only in Him – that we live, that we move, that we have being at all. He knows our words before the thoughts have formed. He knew us before we were even a zygote. Nothing in all time or space escapes His attention. Nothing in all time or space occurs except that He has in some wise ordained it.
Yet, at the same time man is not constrained in his actions, forced to do that which he would not do. We make our choices in full and perfect accord with our desires. If we do what is right, it is because we have decided to do right, not because the will of God has left us with no choice in the matter. If we do what is wrong, it is likewise of our own choosing and we cannot point the finger of blame at any outside force. That most assuredly includes God. We do well to recognize that it likewise includes the devil. Neither forces us to sin. Sin is our own choice.
The doctrine of concurrence leads us to the understanding that God, being perfectly good, can so arrange events that even our sinful pursuits may serve His good purposes. The most familiar expression of this point, already touched on, is the story of Joseph and his brothers. “You meant it for evil, but God worked it for good” (Ge 50:20). One can also look at the record of the kingdom of Israel, and those nations that came against them. The rulers of Babylon and Assyria were hardly to be counted as saints. The soldiers in their armies were not by any stretch to be construed as righteous men. And in Israel were the people God had called His own chosen people. Even the prophets of the period were having difficulty with this. God, how could You? How can it be that these evil men with nothing but murder in their hearts are being counted as part of Your good plan, and we who have remained faithful to You suffer their malignity? How can this be good?
It’s the same question we are considering. And, the answer is the same. Nebuchadnezzar had no intentions of serving God’s purpose. He pursued his own will for conquest and that alone. But, God had a purpose, and that purpose would utilize Nebuchadnezzar’s will to His own ends. He would be made a tool in God’s hands, serving the cause of rebuke and discipline. His evil intent would, in the long run, produce a faithful remnant, would turn the hearts of His own back to Him.
We could turn to the greatest example of this, considering the life of Jesus. As we review the record, particularly of that climactic final week in Jerusalem, it is clear that none of the major players were intent on pursuing God’s will. The Sanhedrin had their own agenda. Pilate certainly had no interest in being an agent of God’s purposes. He is unlikely to have had a thought for God at all, other than to note the stubborn adherence of his sullen populace to this God of theirs. But, He was distinctly their God, not his. It’s questionable whether he had any gods to speak of, let alone the God of Israel. Judas? Judas was a key player in the unfolding of events. But, was he doing so with an eye towards serving God’s purposes? In his own mind, it’s just possible he did. But, his understanding of God’s purposes, if he thought of them at all, was clearly lacking in accuracy. And Satan? It is laughable to suppose that Satan was acting in the hopes of fulfilling God’s purpose in Christ. Yet, he did. Judas did. Pilate did. Caiaphas and Annas and the rest of the Sanhedrin did. All of these had evil intent in one degree or another, yet all of them served the purpose of furthering God’s greatest good towards His elect.
Well, then, what of Pharaoh? This seems problematic, doesn’t it? God, after all, declares outright that He is hardening Pharaoh’s heart, making it impossible that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go willingly. There was not the slightest chance that he was going to acknowledge the God of Israel and set aside his idolatries. Where, then, is his free will in this? Let him stand as the prime example for all who are determined to be reprobate. If the enumerating of the elect is God’s exclusive choice and unalterable, then the corollary must hold as well. Those who are not numbered amongst the elect are so by His exclusive choice and their final state is unalterable.
Paul addresses this conundrum in Romans, but stops short of offering any real rationale for the situation. Instead, he falls back upon the sovereignty of God. “Who are you to answer back to God? Is the created being really going to complain to the Creator that he was made as he was” (Ro 9:20)? Clay does not demand the potter make something better of it. It becomes what the potter chooses to make of it. End of story. But, this is not a particularly satisfying conclusion, true as it is. It still seems unfair. It still feels like fate, something that leaves us not much different than robots or puppets in His hands.
One view would look at the situation and see that Pharaoh and other reprobates are in some regards left more free than the faithful. The hardening of their hearts comes down to the fact of God choosing not to intervene whatsoever in their lives, leaving them entirely to their own devices. Paul builds on that perspective in discussing the legal guilt common to all mankind in this fallen world. “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (Ro 1:24), “to degrading passions” (Ro 1:26). They chose the lie over His truth, and He left them to it. James drives home pretty much the same point. “Don’t try and blame God for your sins. God doesn’t tempt anybody by evil. Your temptation is nothing more than your own lusts enticing you, and sin consists in you being carried away by those lusts” (Jas 1:13-14). The hardened heart is precisely that heart in which God does nothing.
For the redeemed, something more wonderful has transpired. God has intervened. God has replaced the stony heart with a heart of flesh, has unplugged our spiritual ears that we might hear His instruction. He has so worked within us that we are able to will our obedience to His will. We still choose. We still sit in the driver’s seat. But, now we have a map and we know how to use it. Not only do we know how to use it, but we desire to use it.
This brings us round to Martin Luther’s perspective on the matter. In many ways, he argued, our will was never free until that moment of rebirth. Oh, we freely chose, right enough. But, we didn’t know the choices. We freely chose the only option we could see, and the only option we could see was sin. So, off we went. The perspective is much like that of a horse fitted with blinders. Unable to see to left or right, he will go wherever his nose is pointed, undistracted by more pleasant and beneficial options that might pertain if he could but see them. We are like that. We cannot see anything good, can’t understand it as good if we do see it. So, it holds no interest and we plod on, pursuing the sin to which we are accustomed. Comes God, and those blinders are tossed aside. Suddenly, we see a wider array of possibilities. Having been created with a sense of good and evil, however degraded that sense has become, the good, once recognized, is almost assuredly going to become the operative choice.
I think about the choice presented by Moses. “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants” (Dt 30:19). Two paths diverge before you, and the destinations of each have been clearly explained. Go this way, and you shall arrive at a blessed life. Go that way, and you are assured of a cursed life that is nothing but death. Now then: Choose. Which would you have? With so clear a picture and so certain a course set before you, the freest of wills will surely choose life! Who would willingly choose to be eternally accursed in full knowledge of the outcome? It’s unthinkable. We will choose life, and we will do so freely.
Yet, it is clear that there are those who do not so choose. How can this be? If God has so clearly explained the options, how could any man choose death? Doesn’t this just make the whole thing that much more inexplicable? Well, consider for a moment. We have all been recipients of lengthy explanations of one thing or another that we found wholly unconvincing. It might even have been an explanation of something true. But, our own sense of matters, our own overblown evaluation of our cognitive powers, leaves us rejecting the explanation in favor of our own views. Somebody might give us the wisest of counsel in regard to some plan we have in mind. But, if that counsel runs counter to our plans, seems to crush the dream within us, we are likely to reject it out of hand. We will pursue our own course and damn the consequences. Until we find that the consequences have damned us.
All of this is well and good, but what of those circumstances we categorize as natural disasters, things that a previous generation would refer to as acts of God? We see people perishing in earthquake and flood. We suffer the devastation wrought by hurricanes and tornadoes. There is no human agency involved here. There’s no heart to harden. Those people were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. How are we supposed to understand something like that as the good outworking of God’s good will?
[01/11/14] There’s no shortage of those who will claim every such act is retribution against a sinful populace. But, what of the righteous remnant also caught up in the disaster? There are those, on the other side of the argument, that will look upon such events as proof that God, if He exists, is not good. Look at the evil He just wrought so indiscriminately! As it happens, I was reading a bit of commentary on Romans this morning written by John McArthur. He notes God’s clear sense of beauty, and points to the idea that even the cataclysmic event that led to the creation of the Grand Canyon turned out to produce a thing of surpassing beauty. The cataclysm itself would have struck any who witnessed it as a terrible thing, particularly if they were living in the area at the time. But, that which was wrought by its awful power? A marvel for the ages.
That’s all well and good, but does beauty negate evil or define good? That is a conclusion that comes very near to the pragmatic philosophy that the ends justify the means: A popular enough notion for mankind in general, but hardly in keeping with Scripture’s dictums, I should think. Yes, there are examples (as was brought out in some comments on a website somewhere) where actions generally decried by Scripture are instead commended by the same. The lies of Rahab, for example, or the deception of the Jewish midwives in Egypt, stand as clearly contrary to the requirement of bearing true witness. Yet, these are acts of preservation. A greater good is served by the lesser evil. Do we, then, accept situational ethics as a Biblical principle? Do we see these actions as reflecting God’s character?
In some ways, I think we can answer in the affirmative. God will act to preserve life, particularly the life of His elect. The actions taken to that end may well seem evil. God will take action to punish the unrepentant sinner, in order that Justice may be upheld, and the means of their demise may well seem evil. We can even go so far as to say those actions truly are evil. That certainly brings us to a hard spot. If the actions are evil, surely the actor is evil? Come back to the natural disaster and who is there to point to as actor except God?
How are we to look at something like a Katrina or the tsunami that struck Japan and find them good in any way? The loss of life was horrendous, and the fact that so many rushed to aid those impacted by these events doesn’t really change the horror of the loss. Was this justice served? Is that the only way to understand it? It may be that for some of those impacted by the event this was indeed the case. It seems unlikely that it was the case for all. Is there a place on earth so utterly lost in darkness that not a single man of faith remains? Probably. But, is New Orleans such a place? That seems doubtful to me.
It is beyond me, I think, to arrive at a full and satisfactory answer. That God is good, I am quite certain. That there is, therefore, some way in which these things can be viewed that leads one to count them good, I am equally certain. But, in my finite mind I cannot arrive at that perspective. His ways are too far beyond me. I touch on things I cannot comprehend. The best I can manage, I think, is to acknowledge that the scope encompassed by my perspective is too small. I have no sense of the grand scheme that would allow me to see this event as part of a longer view. Neither, at the end of it all, am I in position to set myself as the arbiter and assessor.
There was an impressive article posted recently on one of the sites I tend to visit discussing one man’s efforts to arrive at a sound basis for morality, for defining good and evil. That man’s efforts sought to keep God out of the equation, to leave man in the position of determining the measure. But, any such attempt is doomed. Morality that rests on man, whether singularly or societally, is a malleable, unstable morality subject to change without notice. Morality, to have meaning, requires something far more consistent as its basis, and no such consistent basis can be found apart from God. I do not do the point justice, but that does not render the point any less valid. Even that man seeking an alternative was seeing this reality, though he would not accede to it. He offered his best humanistic theory of good and evil, and even as he did so, found it wanting. It was a far greater leap of faith than we Christians are generally supposed to take.
I must accept, in this instance, that as I said, I am not in position to judge God. You are not in such a position. The whole of humanity has not produced one man or woman suited to that position. I fear I must fall back to join Paul. Will the clay really complain to the potter, “why have you made me this way?” I do not arrive at the view that I must therefore construe all that happens as good. No. Evil actions are evil. Neither, in light of God’s providential management of all creation, do I arrive at a position that discounts natural acts as necessarily morally neutral and therefore removed from consideration. Even those acts, being as they are directed by God, are acts of a moral agent and therefore bear moral implications. Yet, there remains the mystery – mystery in the Biblical sense of knowledge reserved to God Himself – that somehow He permits and even decrees such evil actions without being Himself evil.
Does that seem an excuse? Yes. Sounds like one to me, too. But, it must hold true. Like that man seeking a moral equation exclusive of God, I find myself dissatisfied with my results. But, God remains far greater than I am. His ways are not my ways, and there is much about Him that remains too wonderful by far for my comprehension. I must abide with that reality. I can but seek as best I may to see His good in those things I count evil. I must do my utmost to perceive His purposes even in the hard things.
Peter points us in this direction with this section of his letter. Suffering unjustly is evil, surely? But, look what may come of it! If you, in spite of this injustice, persist in doing what is right and good, it’s just possible that God will so use your actions as to bring these evil-doers out of their sinful life of death and into righteous living. After all, is this not what He did for you? The means may have differed, but the ends were the same. Out of darkness, light. Out of the camps of the sinner into the liberty of faith. Out of ignorance into the knowledge of your God. If, then, He has opted to use you as the means to draw yet another out of death into life, will you really complain at being so used? Not if your eyes are on the kingdom and its King.
There remains the other aspect of this dilemma. If God promulgates the act, and God is good, on what basis can we construe the act as evil? This is the attempted moral escape clause of the one who would persist in his sins with impunity. If, he reasons, I am constrained to act this way because God has so decreed it, on what basis does He find me guilty for the outcome? If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart such that he could not repent, then why is he held accountable for the fact that he didn’t repent? He couldn’t. How is it his fault, then? Ought not the blame to fall on God for having forced the issue? No.
I have already touched on the answer to that, I think, with the discussion on the doctrine of concurrence. Pharaoh did not act against his desires. The hardening of his heart did not consist in constraining his will, but rather of giving it free rein. He acted in perfect accord with his own nature and desire. If anything, we might better look upon Moses as the man constrained in his actions. Yet, in reality this is no more the case for him than for Pharaoh. Where there has been intervention in the life of Moses, it has been to open his eyes to the goodness of God. It has been in having the blinders removed from his conscience to see a wider array of options. But, he is equally free in choosing to obey. We see from the accounts that it was not an easy choice for him. Seeing the task proposed, his first response was to suggest there were better men available, more suited to the task. But, having wrestled with his conscience on the matter, he acceded to God’s will, and what marvelous results!
This is where we are left. Whether God has chosen to open our field of vision or whether He has not, our choices remain our own. I have heard it said so often that God is a gentleman, and never forces us to a particular course. I’m not sure but what that overstates the case. I dare say that in the matter of salvation, He has indeed overruled us. As a friend of mine once put it, we have free will, but God’s is freer. His will will be done. And we really can take comfort in this as fact: His will is good.
I know I will not have satisfied the concerns of those who question His goodness or justness. For this I apologize. I am simply not sufficient to the task. God willing, perhaps someday I shall be. That I find men like Paul likewise insufficient to the task leads me to suspect it is unlikely to be me that cracks the nut and makes it all finally crystal clear. I’ll take some comfort in that. But, I’ll take greater comfort in the God Who has made Himself known to me both through the wonder of His creation, and through means far more personal. That He Is, I have no doubt whatsoever. He has made that abundantly clear to me. That He is good, I have no doubt. Of this, too, He has given more than sufficient evidence through the years. Yet, there remains much about Him, about His plans and purposes that I do not know. All will be made known in its time.
Perhaps, as I turn to the last few thoughts for this study, I may find something in them that helps soften the concerns raised above. Peter, at the culmination of this passage, says in effect, God having willed in His will that you must needs suffer, best it be in response to your doing good, not to your sinning. He has hit on this point previously in the letter, and will return to it again later. This whole matter of unjust suffering is, after all, the central concern of his letter.
He is not alone in addressing the matter, for it is a fairly universal experience, and has been forever. James also touches on the subject. In particular, he points us to the account of Job, that most illustrious of examples of unjust suffering. That book is such a solace to those in the midst of dark trials. It does not make the trials any less trying, but it opens us to the possibility, the reality that our trials do not necessarily arise from our sins. Job knew it. Was he a man with no sin? No. There is no man righteous, not even one. That covers Job as well. But, it is made abundantly clear that his troubles arose not because he had sinned, but rather that his life might testify to his righteousness. The devil comes against him with everything that God will allow, yet Job remains true to God. “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him!” Job gets it. “Even if I die, with my eyes I will see God.”
God has not changed, and he gives vigorous defense of himself to those who unjustly accuse him. His friends, such as they are, seek to explain what has befallen him. They are utterly convinced that he must have done something wrong else God would never visit such things upon him. But, they speak from ignorance. Their perspective is too small. Job, I dare say, has not failed to do a great deal of self-examination. I doubt not that he has asked as David did, “search me, O God, and see if there be any wicked way in me” (Ps 139:23). And if there is? “Lead me in the everlasting way” (Ps 139:24). If there is ought of which I need to repent that has escaped my attention, tell me, that I may repent. But, if not, I shall persist in what I know is right, faith in You first in foremost. I know You are good, and I know Your plans for me are good, so whatever this present trouble, I shall resolve to continue in well-doing. Do you hear Peter’s message there? Do you see Jesus’ example there?
So, James brings this one before us. “We look upon those who have endured and count them blessed: Job, for example. There are others. You know of them. You have seen how these things play out, that the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (Jas 5:11). If all we had was the opening sorrows of Job, it would be hard indeed to perceive a compassionate and merciful God behind them. But, seeing the end? Shall we perceive it as part of that pruning process Jesus spoke of? We prune our plants that they may grow more full, produce more fruit. God prunes us to the same ends. Pruning hurts. There’s no way around that fact. The sorrows of Job are real sorrows, and the losses, particularly of his children, were not erased by his having more children later. Those sons are just as dead. Where, then, is the good for them? I don’t know. I might offer this, though: What sins were they given to avoid by passing from life so soon?
I have often heard Hezekiah put forward as an example of the power of prayer. By his petitions, he altered God’s plan and gained years of life that were not originally on the schedule for him. This, first of all, overstates the power of prayer. Prayer is powerful when it is in accord with God’s will. He is not obliged or constrained to answer those prayers that run counter to His purposes, not even from the saintliest of saints, not even from His own Son. But, there is a greater problem with the example. The accounts of Hezekiah’s later years would seem to demonstrate that he would have been far better sticking with God’s plan. In those years that God agreed to add to his life, he undid a great deal of the good he had accomplished previously. Put another way, had he abided by God’s original plan, he would have avoided a good deal of evil. Far better, then, that he had simply prayed, “Thy will be done.”
But, back to Job. The thing we may see in his account, as pertains to Peter’s point, is that his sufferings far excelled those of that one who, being crucified together with Jesus, chose to revile Him. The latter was suffering for his sins, just punishment for crimes committed. The former was suffering for no purpose but to prove his righteousness. And by his sufferings, his righteousness shone forth. Indeed, by his righteousness, we may say that his friends were brought to repentance for their own sins.
That loops us back to Peter’s premise. It is not primarily vindictiveness or vindication that he has in mind. We might reach that conclusion looking at verse 16. Yes! Our accusers will be put to shame! We win. But, it’s not about causing them embarrassment and chagrin. It’s about repentance. It’s about faith. Who knows but that your example might lead them to assess their own ways and recognize that they are found wanting? Who knows but that your persistence in doing what’s right regardless of the consequences might lead them to that Christ who has empowered you to do so? That is, or ought to be, ever the hope of the Christian.
The report has come out recently that last year saw double the number of Christians murdered for their faith compared to the previous year. That is a terrible thing, considered solely as the loss of human life. But, there is also something marvelous to be realized here. Each one of those who died for being a Christian did so, apparently, without recanting their faith.
Some might attempt to draw a sort of moral equivalence between these who have been put to death by their enemies, and those of the enemy camp who have taken upon themselves a suicide pact to go kill unbelievers by their own deaths. But, there is no equivalence. The Muslim martyr goes to his death in pursuit of death on a grander scale. The Christian goes to his death seeking to impart life even in dying. That a man should look upon these acts as equal in any way says more about the depravity of that man than about the comparative qualities of disparate religions.
If, dare I say when, you suffer for the sake of righteousness, count yourselves blessed. It ought not trouble your conscience, as though suffering must indicate sins of which you have not repented. No! Keep doing what you know is right. Maintain Christ as your Lord and Commander, and be at peace, knowing the certain hope that is yours. And, if those who cause your suffering should ask how you can be so calm in the face of torture and death, give answer, but with calm and respect, not angry spitefulness. May they who mistreat you be brought to shame by your consistent goodness in the face of their worst efforts. May they be changed from enemies to brothers by your example. That must have its place in your hope. Do not let their mistreatment of you bring you to sin, such that your sufferings are now the product of sin, rather than the pruning of righteousness.
The tales told of Peter’s own demise stand as testimony to his point. Sentenced to be crucified for his faith, Peter’s request was not that the sentence be commuted, but that he be crucified upside down lest he be seen as too equal to Christ in his death. “I am unworthy.” One can look to the stories that abounded in the centuries of the Church’s greatest persecution, of those who, far from running from the danger, practically ran towards it. Yes! Let me be found worthy to die for my Savior. Let my death become a testimony by which these persecutors might be saved. That is the message still proclaimed by the martyrs of our own day. To live is Christ, to die is gain. What is there that man can do to me, if God is for me? You can but kill the body, but He has my soul.
May we be of like faith to these men of whom we are not worthy.
