New Thoughts (11/20/14-11/23/14, 11/30/14-12/04/14)
Fear and Worship (11/23/14)
“Do not fear their intimidation.” This is how the NASB translates Peter’s quotation of Isaiah. More literally, it is, “Do not fear their fear.” As I explored in earlier notes on this passage, the original setting would suggest something other than intimidation, something nearer to paranoia. This does not necessitate that we take Peter’s meaning as being the same, but it does lend some weight to that idea.
It will also serve us well to be mindful that fear and worship are often used as synonyms. Think of the formulaic expression of God’s history with Israel: The God of Abraham, the Fear of Isaac, the God of Jacob. It may well be that this serves as a sort of commentary on Isaac, but it is also a commentary on worship, and other passages make that connection clear. There is reason to fear God, particularly if you are an unrepentant sinner. “Fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell” (Mt 10:28). Indeed, there is cause to fear His retribution, for there can be no escaping it by human means.
If we look back to pre-Roman history, it is clear that the religions of those tribes that populated Canaan and the surrounding regions consisted largely of fear. Fear leads to a form of worship that consists primarily of attempts to appease this feared god. Humans being what they are in their fallen state, these attempts tended to be combined with hopes of manipulating said god to act in a particular fashion. If we do thus, he will not destroy us. If we do so, perhaps he will cause our crops to grow. Jacob’s dealings with God show signs of having picked up some of these habits before God made it pretty clear He wasn’t like that. Look at the episode of Jacob wrestling with the heavenly representative, and what is Jacob doing? He asks the representative’s name (Ge 32:29). Why is that? Because there was this superstitious belief that if you knew the being’s name, you could utilize that to manipulate the being.
To have the name was to have command. There is some truth to that concept, as the course of Genesis makes clear. At the outset, Adam, to whom was given dominion over all the creatures of the earth, was called upon to name each one. This was a mark of his dominion. But, God named Adam. That establishes the primacy of God. God also renames various individuals: Abram becomes Abraham, Jacob becomes Israel. This, too, was a clarifying of His rule over them. Then, come to the New Testament, and we see first John the Baptist and then Jesus named not by mother or father, but by God. They may be born to human parents, but they belong to God. There will be no mistaking that point. In short, pay heed to who is providing the names. It’s more than a bit of artistic detail.
But, the efforts at manipulating the gods were far more widespread. Every sacrifice was fundamentally an effort to manipulate the god to whom the sacrifice was made. Having begun reading through Joseph’s history this morning, I went through the chapter regarding Judah’s Canaanite wife, his three sons by her, and his daughter-in-law Tamar. She poses as a prostitute in her efforts to have justice from Judah. But, prostitution was a temple function – not the Temple, but several of the pagan cults supported this concept. Why? The hope was that the act of sexual intercourse itself might somehow manipulate the gods to bring fertility both in child bearing and in crops. No doubt, for many men it was no more than a cheap excuse, but the practice remained a manipulative matter. Arguably it still does.
What of Roman and Greek practices? Were they really that much different? No. They had particularly capricious pantheons. This is hardly surprising, given gods modeled on man. But, it made it that much more important to appease and manipulate these capricious beings who could either bless you or blast you on merest whim. They were not forces of nature, per se. Neither were they particularly just or virtuous. In many ways, it seems to me their gods were built from the worst of human traits. Be that as it may, worship was still an outworking of fear. It may have been fear of the uncontrollable or fear of powerful beings or simply fear of social stigma. Add to that fear of a rather insane Caesar and his army. There was a lot to be afraid of.
What advice does Peter speak into this setting, to these newish Christians who are products of that background? “Fear not their fear.” God is not like that. You know this. He is Just, and His perfect Justice is a large part of why you know hope. Don’t forget it. He doesn’t need to be manipulated into doing good. He is good! He has adopted you and called you His own children. There is no fear in that. Neither is there cause to fear whatever god-induced retribution these neighbors of yours may be calling down. Those idols are lifeless and the gods they claim to represent are powerless. There is nothing to fear there. To borrow a point from Mr. Clarke: If they curse you by their gods, what is that? They are powerless words, just as they are powerless gods.
The antidote is stated by pretty much every commentary you wish to consult. I’ll start with Mr. Clarke. “He who fears God need have no other fear.” Indeed. The JFB concurs. “He that fears God has none else to fear.” Matthew Henry brings it to application. “Did we fear God more, we should certainly fear men less.” From this, he draws the lesson that the antidote for the fear of man is sanctifying God in your heart, which is but to state Peter’s point.
Listen: We are hardly immune to fear. We have all manner of fears that assault our senses daily. The news industry seems particularly geared towards ensuring this. Politicians pretty much count on it. Even advertising tends to work on the basis of fear, although they present it in prettier form. You want the good life? Buy this. The unstated corollary is clearly intended to be understood: If you don’t buy this, your life is going to be miserable, you failure, you.
Sovereignty of God (11/30/14)
If we are not immune to fear then how shall we combat it? John tells us that, “Perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love” (1Jn 4:18). Typically, if we quote this passage at all, we stop after the fifth word, cutting it down to, “Perfect love casts out fear.” It is in this form that I tend to remember it, and without the rest of the sentence, it allows me to jump off into unsupported directions. I was headed in that direction with this paragraph, but I think now, I ought not to go there, for John’s point is not to give us the antidote but to explain why we have the symptoms in the first place. If it is medicine, it is preventative medicine. Now that we’ve already contracted the disease, though, we may need to look elsewhere.
We needn’t look far, for Peter is providing the antidote right here. It’s just hard to see it for what it is. “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (verse 15). How does this cure anything? Oh! But, it cures everything! To sanctify Christ has to do with bringing our assessment of His true character and worth into alignment with reality. Every person ever in the world has an opinion of Christ Jesus. But, opinions are powerless things for all that they move people to act. Opinions cannot change reality. They cannot alter the truth, only obscure it or support it. Our opinion of God, and of Christ Jesus in particular, will do nothing to change His character. But, if our opinion of God and of Christ Jesus be accurate, it will do much to change ours!
I looked at this phrase in great detail in the first-pass study on this section. Here, I would focus on this point: If we have sanctified Christ as Lord we have rightly formed our assessment of Him so as to place Him in the place of Sovereign ruler over not only our own lives, but the lives of every man. For all that, as He demonstrated quite clearly during the course of His earthly ministry, He is Sovereign ruler over all creation. Animals, rocks, wind and rain, ocean and earth; all answer to His will. There is nothing left which is outside of His ruling authority or beyond His power to constrain to His desired course.
How does this help us to combat fear? If God is thus in control of all things and insurmountable in power, and if He is the God whose love for you was so great as to give up His own Son, His own life, that you might live; and if He is also the God who has proclaimed, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jer 31:3), how can we have room left for fear? Look, it may be that I cannot take 1John 4:18 as supporting Jesus as the perfect love which casts out all fear, but if I will contemplate His perfect love for me – everlasting, unchanging, self-sacrificing and complete – what is left to fear? If this all-powerful God has got my back, and is simultaneously setting my course, what can I have besides confidence? If I have sanctified Him, set my opinions and feelings about Him according to the truth of Who He Is, this will demand my confidence in His power. If I have truly and fully absorbed the reality that, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Ro 8:28), and are rightly informed as to our being among the called, the which His Holy Spirit will gladly inform our spirit is the case if it be so, then there is nothing left to fear.
Come what may, if we are sanctifying this God in our hearts, if we have truly granted Him what is His regardless, which is His lordship over our lives, then wherefore shall we seek redress for the circumstances of this life? Let me just back up to the if clause just given. Recall that to sanctify Christ as Lord is but to form our opinions in congruence to the Truth. He is Lord. As I said earlier, opinion can’t change the fact of who He is. It’s not a question of whether Christ is Lord of your life or not. The question is whether you have aligned yourself willingly under His lordship. Let me set this another way. Jesus Christ is just as much Lord over the devil. Satan cannot move one inch beyond the boundaries set by Christ, any more than the ocean can. But, this does not by any stretch set Satan among the elect. He has a Lord in Christ, but he hates it with every fiber of his being.
The same can be said for the rabid atheists that have arisen in recent years. Their opinions about God have not changed who He is. Their rejection of His Lordship has not thrown Him out of power. Far from it! They have set themselves as His enemies, but then, they were already so, weren’t they? Can they be saved? It is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, for nothing shall be impossible with God. That is settled. Will He save them? That’s His business. Ours, by His command, is to give them every opportunity of salvation by the very means Peter advises here: Being always ready to present a humble, reverent, well-reasoned explanation for the reality of that hope which is ours in Christ. But, if He chooses to harden their hearts, then it would not matter if they had Moses, Paul, Peter and all the great preachers who followed preaching to them.
It is not preaching that saves. It is God. It is not persistent prayer that saves. It is God. This is not in any way to be taken as belittling either the preaching or the prayer. Both are matters commanded by our Lord. Both are means of grace which He has wisely ordained as His preferred means for reaching the lost. But, they shall never, in and of themselves, achieve the goal. It is God.
This ought also to give us confidence as we explain our faith. The point of giving a reasoned defense of faith is surely to bring the one to whom we present that defense around to our point of view. But, the success or failure of our effort is not the proper measure. Obedience is the measure. Success or failure is up to God. Obedience is our choice. It is an evidence, if you please, that we have truly sanctified Christ as Lord in our hearts. Our failure to heed this call can only be evidence that however much we may proclaim Christ as Lord with our lips, He is far from that in our hearts.
God’s holiness deserves and demands our confidence. God’s holiness deserves and demands that we ascribe to Him those character traits that are His. If He has said He works all things for our good, and if He is truly sovereign over all things, then all things in my life are progressing according to plan – according to His plan. There is a reason. It’s not senseless aggravation. It’s discipline and training. If God is sanctified as Lord in my heart, then I am no longer in any position to be whining about what He has ordained for me. The servant (who alone can have a lord after this fashion) simply does not argue his assignment with his lord. He does what he is told, and if he is a good and wise servant, does so as ably as he may. If the work is odious, what of it? It is the task assigned, and I shall do it with my utmost. If the work is glorious, what of it? It’s not my glory. I shall do it with my utmost, but it’s God or it’s nothing.
Here is the test for this matter of sanctifying God in your heart as Lord. If we claim to be content in Him, and yet we are spending all our energy chasing after something better, badgering God for a better life, we are quite simply not there yet. I don’t say this as giving cause to lose hope. I say this to chase off our delusions, so that we may pay heed to this call to sanctification. Further, I do not propose that the one who has sanctified God as Lord in his heart has become immune to sorrows. There is nothing in this that calls us to celebrate misery, to deny the reality of suffering. No way! Peter, for all that this entire letter is one long sermon on suffering, never suggests such a course. James might. “Consider it all joy, when you encounter various trials” (Jas 1:2). But, don’t miss the explanation there. “Knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance” (Jas 1:3).
It may very well be that you will not be able to count it as joy except in retrospect. The loss of a loved one cannot be accounted a joy at the time, nor should it be. Trial and imprisonment on false charges cannot be accounted a joy. These to whom Peter was writing were not being advised to shout out, “Thank You, Jesus!” as they were fired, turned out of their houses, or dragged before magistrates. Neither will you find Paul doing so. That’s not the point.
What is the point, then? I would say it is this: We are not to allow our circumstances to define us. We are not to become victims of circumstance, as to our thinking. I can think of many folks I have known who met some adversity in life and everything that came thereafter became referenced back to that adversity. I wanted to be this, but that happened, and now everything is awful and always will be. Woe is me, I am brought low. The world is against me. I’m being oppressed by the Man, and there’s just nothing I can do about it.
Do you see what happens with that mindset? Resignation. Passivity. This is the life of fate, not faith. But, many a Christian – and I will assert a true Christian, if rather immature – lives just such a life. If God is not showering me with riches and possessions, then I cannot be happy in Him. Either He’s not treating me right (what is He, your sugar-daddy?) or I must be doing something wrong and He’s punishing me. Look, when you take instruction in some skilled art, whether painting, music or even physical fitness, the lessons are not typically going to be pleasant matters. The stuff of the lesson exercises is not the stuff you’re striving to achieve. The exercises do not constitute the ends. They are the means to the ends.
If I have plateaued as a sax player, it is largely for this very reason: I am unwilling to put up with the unpleasantness of the exercises required to achieve the next level. I can write it off to any manner of excuses. I would not wish to inflict that noise upon my loved ones. I’m too old, too refined, too whatever to be assaying such simple ditties. I already play stuff that’s way more advanced, so why regress? Or, my personal favorite, all these lessons are written for a properly trained sax-player, so they’re for a Bb instrument, but I read in concert scale. What it comes down to, whatever the excuse du jour, is that in my heart, I have formed the opinion that it’s too much work and just not worth it.
All of this has its direct corollary in the life of faith. If I have plateaued as a Christian, it is largely for this very reason: I am unwilling to put up with the unpleasantness of the exercises required to achieve the next level. Now, here’s where things diverge radically: This is a spiritual matter, and God is involved. If I make my assessment and discover that this is where I am at, it does not become a call to work myself up to get after my exercises. I cannot work my way off the plateau. What I can do is get back to the underlying issue, and look to how I consider God. Is He God to me? Have I properly assayed what that would mean? Is He Lord of me? Really? I can just move straight onto the follow up question: Where am I not willingly granting Him His right of Lordship over me? Even then, having identified the issue, I cannot work my way into right standing. I cannot somehow pray so fervently and earnestly that God is finally moved to make the necessary change. I can, however, rest in the knowledge that God will, in His time, make that change. I can, to the best I am able, set myself willing to the change when it comes. I can seek to pursue those habits and exercises I have been taught already which will set me alongside Him in His work rather than setting myself athwart what He is doing.
I can lean back on this point, which I borrow from Calvin. He is our witness. He is our leader into conflict. He is our protection in the midst of conflict. That is, I think, particularly true when it comes to our inward conflict, for we are most often our own worst enemies. Let us, then, sanctify God as Lord in our hearts, and where (I say not if) we find it is not so, let us set ourselves to pray that God will soften the hardened spots of our hearts, lest we find ourselves, like Pharaoh, incapable of acting in our own best interest.
Earnestness of Faith (12/01/14)
We have seen that sanctifying Christ in our hearts – assessing to Him the true valuation of His being – serves as the great antidote for fear. But, there remains more to it. We sanctify Him as Lord. What is that but to acknowledge His claims upon us? If He is Lord, He has right of command. If He has right of command (and particularly as He Who commands is all-powerful), we who have thus sanctified Him can but respond as He and He alone deserves. That is to say that our actions must come to reflect this sanctified perspective. Sanctification of act follows upon sanctification of Christ as Lord.
This is more than just that obedience which one renders for lack of alternatives. Peter’s already dealt with that. This Christ Who is our Lord is no unreasonable master that we are obliged to obey none the less (1Pe 2:18). No! We have sanctified Him in our hearts: brought our opinions around to a true valuation of His character and essence. Ergo, it must be that our opinions regarding what He has commanded must agree that what He has commanded is just and good. If what He has commanded is entirely just and good, and there is nothing that is outside His command, then it follows that we have no business complaining about circumstance ever.
Yet, I can say without hesitation that for my own part, I am terribly capable of complaint. Oh, believe me, you did not wish to be in our house this last week. With my beloved wife enfeebled by some bruised ribs, our daughter rather abruptly and forcefully evicted (though with love), and myself battling a cold, “Happy Thanksgiving” sounded just a bit sarcastic. It was meant, but it was difficult to feel it. I am, I must confess, a miserable patient. I hate the sickness. I hate the tissues. I hate my nose for being plugged. I hate the fact that I am forced to breathe through my mouth, and I hate knowing that’s going to lead to a hacking cough the next few days. I hate the disruption of my nice, orderly days. And, believe me, I let everybody know about it.
I don’t say that as one who is proud of the fact. I say it because it convicts me. It convicts me because this whole discussion of sanctifying Christ as Lord, of recognizing His providential care over my every circumstance is so central to my faith. And yet: Here I am carping about what He has provided. It isn’t to my specification. And the only proper response to that is: So what? It’s not about my specification. It’s about my good. Apparently, this last week is for my good. How so? I suppose we shall see in time.
Regardless, there is this call to sanctify first my heart and then my behavior. It cannot go the other way. Any attempt to sanctify behavior before the heart is futile. But, there is this danger that besets every Christian: That we begin just going through the motions. It may be that for a great portion of the church, the assessment Barnes offers holds true. “Many admit the doctrine that God is holy into their creeds, who never suffer the sentiment to find its way to the heart.” It sounds dire. But, then, I am mindful that the entire ministry of R.C. Sproul is determined to address this exact problem, that we speak the word regarding God’s holiness, but we haven’t the concept or, having the concept, we haven’t the wits to shape our response accordingly.
If God is holy – which He is; and if He is Lord – which He is; then how is it we who call Him Lord are so quick to act in ways wholly at odds with His commandments? If we love Him why are we constantly sinning against Him? If we believe He has the right to rule over us, and that His rule over us is entirely just and good, what are we doing blowing off His commands and acting as we please? Never mind the vile sinfulness of this behavior. This is insanity! To know the best course one could take and then to willingly, knowingly head in the exact opposite direction? What else can that be but insanity?
But, Peter points us towards an even more critical concern with this dysfunctional walk. Note where he is going with this call to sanctify Christ as Lord. We have a mission. In the midst of this persecution, in the very face of unjust suffering, we have a mission: Give an account for the hope that is in you. That’s where this is aiming. But, we all know the adage that actions speak louder than words. If your actions are at odds with the Gospel you are proclaiming what reason do you have to suppose your listener is going to find cause for belief? If you are going through the motions of church, or even of those things we speak of as spiritual disciplines, but your actions in every other setting demonstrate that you are wholly unaffected by what you claim to believe, then your efforts to proclaim this faith are wasted. You frankly don’t have this faith, and far from concerning yourself with bringing these others into the light, you should be rather concerned about coming into the light in your own right.
“Profession without practice has no weight,” as the JFB offers the point. Let it be understood, though, that there is practice. The problem is that what is practiced is wholly at odds with what is professed. You can imagine the picture. Here you are, accosted by unbelievers, and you are proclaiming how this God you serve is good, all powerful, and how He loves you. Meanwhile, they are poking you with their sharp sticks or hurling their abuses at you, and how do you respond? Do you get angry? That is just evidence that your God has done nothing to change you. Do you become despondent under the abuse? That’s no show of confidence in this God you claim is your Lord and Savior. By these and like actions you present as a fake, and if you present as a fake rest assured that you will be perceived as a fake. Those who are making their assessment are entirely biased in favor of seeing you as a fake. They want that to be the case because it lets them off the hook. You needn’t make it easy for them.
There is this, as well: The particular defense Peter calls us to deliver is that for the hope that is in you. How shall you give an account for a hope you don’t have? If your hopes are dashed that easily, they are no hopes at all. They are just the standard-issue, wouldn’t it be nice, happy thinking of the world. Think back to Rodney King with his question. “Can’t we all just get along?” That’s not hope. Hope is solid. Hope has certainty. It’s not a wish that things could be otherwise, it’s a rock-solid confidence that because God’s involved things will be otherwise.
We’ve been working through the record of Joseph’s fall and rise in our Sunday classes the last few weeks. Joseph had this hope. By all evidence, however low he was brought by the events of life he did not lose sight of the fact that he was God’s man. God would take care of him. Thrown in a well? What of it? God is in control. Sold into slavery? Well and good, be the best slave ever, then. Honor God for He remains in control. Imprisoned for a crime he never committed? So be it. Be a model prisoner, lest God’s name be dishonored. How could he deal with all this without sinking into despair? There’s only one way. He had hope. He did not have that sort of hope that says, “Gee, maybe some day I’ll find a way to escape.” He did not have that sort of hope that says, “It’s bound to get better,” or the almost prophetically erroneous, “Things can’t get any worse.” He’s not counting on some presidential pardon or other, similarly unlikely event. He’s counting on God. He is anchored to God’s promises. He knows Whom he serves and therein he knows he has every reason to hope.
I feel confident that as he languished in prison, there were any number of prisoners who wondered at his calm acceptance of the situation and at his willingness to be of service under those conditions. He wasn’t (it would be clear) just trying to ease his own situation. He was truly working for the good of all, and particularly for the good of the imprisoning authorities. Is it even possible that nobody came to ask him what his deal was? Do you suppose that the baker and the cup-bearer came seeking his advice without having come previously to find out who he was? And how do you imagine Joseph responded to such inquiries? I imagine he responded exactly as Peter is advocating here. Joseph was, by all evidence, a man ready to make a defense for the hope that was his, yet with gentleness and reverence.
He would honor God by admitting God. Calvin makes this point regarding Peter’s call upon us, noting that we truly honor God, “when neither fear nor shame hinders us from making a profession of our faith.” If we are afraid to proclaim the Gospel to those who come with their questions, what does that say about our assessment of God? Nothing good. If they come asking about this God we love, and all we have to offer is happy feelings and a bunch of traditions, then we have nothing and we give them nothing. It will come to nothing. Oh! But, where that faith is real and living and growing? “The confession which flows from the heart is alone that which is approved by God; for except faith dwells within, the tongue prattles in vain.” There is Calvin’s assessment. There’s a reason he’s so associated with the idea of a heart aflame. His was no arrangement of empty ritual and tradition. His was no preaching Scripture to earn a living. His was a life given over wholly and utterly to the service of this God who had captured his heart and set it aflame with a passion for God’s holiness.
There is a reason Calvin’s influence has been so great, and it is precisely because the life he lived reflected the message he preached, and that was in accord with the God he served. Plenty of men, he notes, are quite free with their tongues in proclaiming Christian doctrine, and yet they demonstrate no fruit by which to back up their words. Such men are quite properly ignored by all but the most foolish. I fear that in our day this becomes a great issue. We have access to all manner of preaching via television, radio and internet. What we don’t have is any relationship to those preaching, that we might assay their character. Do they live what they preach or are they blind Pharisees laying burdens on their listeners that they themselves would not lift? We cannot know. Are they preaching a true message that has demonstrably flowed out of their own progress in true faith? Or are they repeating textbook lessons that they have memorized without actually pondering? We cannot know because we cannot know the man. If these are men free of tongue but devoid of fruit, they ought rightfully to be ignored. Indeed, it could very well be that the absence of fruit has caused them to be ignored by those who know them and this is why they have opted to broadcast to a more remote audience.
How often have we seen it play out? We have these household names of ministry, men and women who have become media sensations and made a very nice living out of preaching the Gospel, or at least their own personal approximation of it. They’ve become downright rich preaching about prosperity to the poor, and they’ve done it, in many cases, by taking what little the poor had as they propound their false hope. Then comes the day that their personal habits come to light. That one who has been preaching so fiercely against sexual sins is discovered to have a long time habit of frequenting prostitutes. This other one is discovered to be neck deep in a drug habit even as he preaches holiness day after day, and insists that a true believer ™ can and will live a perfectly sinless life in the here and now.
If the fallout of this was only that their empire came crashing down, that might not be so bad. If the fallout was only that public opinion regarding televangelists was a bit worse than it already is, we could perhaps bear the ignominy of it all. But, the problem is worse. When it is discovered that the lives of such men contradict their claims of piety it is not only themselves we find exposed to ridicule. By their actions they expose the very Truth of God to ridicule. That’s a huge problem. That’s a problem because it renders it far more difficult for the Truth of God to gain a hearing. Why do you suppose it is that we see such animosity to the Christian message in our day? It’s all well and good to blame it on Satan or just write it off as further evidence that the last day is drawing near. But, the reality is that much of the problem is to be found in the damage inflicted by false preachers with false gospels. The lies have been told in so many ways, and proven to be lies so often, that the Truth upon which the lies were built cannot get a fair hearing any more.
Let me be very clear here. The problem is not limited to those televangelists who have been as leeches sucking the blood of the Church. The problem is present in every last one of us. Paul was warning his readers about this at the beginning. Don’t let your actions be cause for shame to come upon the Gospel. Listen! They know you are a Christian. And, we understand quite well that the occasional sinful lapse does not render your claim of rebirth false. But, they know what you are and they are watching. They want you to prove false. They want nothing more than to discover that the hope you hold to is of no more validity or worth than the ridiculous idea that man is progressing to some marvelous state of perfection thanks to science or some such. This is a call to take greater care that our faith is demonstrable by our actions. This is a call to take greater care that we not lapse into sin, because the damage is far greater than just our own guilty conscience. The damage may well be that another hearing for the Gospel has been lost, perhaps several hearings.
It is said repeatedly in Christian circles these days that it’s not about you. That’s been the problem. So much has been made of the personal conversion, the personal relationship, the personal salvation, that we have conditioned ourselves to focus on self. This is in part why so many are willing to abandon organized church and still think they are making progress in something resembling a Christian life. This is why there is little energy for evangelism. If it’s all about me; my salvation, my sanctification, my eternal life, then I don’t really have time for you. But, if it’s not about me? Then, my sins are not about me, either. They’re worse. They’re about quite possibly doing you harm. It’s not that I go out there with the intent of causing you injury. The problem is that my momentary lapse of sanctity may be perceived by you as evidence of absolute falsity. The problem is that my sin may become your excuse, and cost you your life for an eternity. I may be forgiven, but how shall I forgive myself if that which I did caused you to remain unrepentant and unforgiven?
Oh! May it never be! May I find in this understanding fresh fuel to be more diligent, more dependent upon the Holy Spirit within, that I may not sin against God or against any whom God would deign to call His own.
Reasonableness of Faith (12/02/14)
As to the message we are called to deliver, we understand that we are to convey the Gospel of Christ, to convey it accurately and completely, and to convey it to the exclusion of all else. If anyone comes with a different Gospel, contrary to what has been preached, let him be accursed (Gal 1:8). Even, God forbid, if I am the one that comes with this altered message, curse and accept not! That’s how strongly Paul felt regarding maintaining the purity of sound doctrine. So, it is the one, pure, true Gospel of Christ that we preach, however we may preach. What is that Gospel? By definition, it is good news. That is what the term means. What is the good news? Fundamentally, it is the news that the Judge of all the earth has found cause to drop His charges against you. He has paid the penalty demanded by His own law for your sins so that you may be forgiven. Why should you care what He thinks about you? Because you have been living under a death sentence for crimes against the King since the day you were born. Your sin has ever been before you, and the demand of the Law for your sin is death.
Peter sums this message up in a word: Hope. Explain this hope that is in you. That is how we preach the Gospel. Oh, there are many fine points of doctrine upon which we might expound. We could certainly stir up debates along the Calvinist/Arminian divide or the Baptist/Presbyterian divide or any of the many other defining points of this or that branch of Christian understanding. But, these are not the Gospel. These debates do not express the hope. Arguably, they underpin that hope, and that holds true whichever side of the divide you find yourself. In most every case, those on either side of the point are there by dint of diligent effort to understand the matter, and they have godly reasons for holding to their convictions. Clearly, given the mutually exclusive nature of the viewpoints in question, at least one must be wrong. But, until God sees fit to correct the misunderstanding, far better for that one who is wrong to abide by his convictions with clear conscience.
No, the message we have is one of hope. That hope must be explained clearly and cogently. The first aspect of hope we must explain is its nature. Hope, like love, has become so watered down a concept as to be little more than a vague feeling. If you speak to the average person of hope what he hears is wishful thinking. You say you have hope in you. He hears it as conceptually equivalent to hoping it’s sunny and warm tomorrow. For many, perhaps for most, hope is false hope. It is delusional thinking that defies the evidence of reality, and it is going to fail in the end. I would argue that hope in anything other than Christ is in this category.
The atheist is not without hope. It is just that his hope is false. He hopes that death is the end of the game. He hopes that there is no judgment that awaits. That hope will come crashing down in flames when he finds himself before the Judge upon His throne. The one pursuing a salvation based on his own works is not without hope. It is just that his hope is false. He hopes that at the end of his days, the good things he has done will outweigh the sins he has committed when all is set in the balance. That hope will also be proven lethally false when he discovers that his best works were but filthy rags, and what he hoped would tilt the balance has indeed done so, but in the wrong direction.
So, yes: We need to explain hope. We need to explain what hope is – and what it isn’t. We need to explain sin, because the world does not really believe in sin, certainly not its own. We live in a world that does not really comprehend evil, does not believe it. They have convinced themselves that man is inherently good and that if we would just put him in his proper environment all of these societal evils we could be done with all these societal evils. But, this is only another false hope. Man, left to himself, does not prove to be pure and innocent, but rather demonstrates his total corruption at the earliest opportunity.
First, we must lead the hearer to recognize his real situation, his deadly peril. He is, indeed, a sinner in the hands of an angry God, however offensive modern man may find the stating of so blunt a truth. He is helpless in himself. He has not the means of saving his own life. But, lo! There is hope! It is here, and it is not some gossamer construct that will be rent through by the first gusts of opposition. It will not be rent through by the worst of tempests, because this hope is solid. It is an anchor in the storm. It is our ark amidst the flood of woes. But, if we would have our hearing, it must be presented in a reasonable – and well-reasoned – fashion: Clearly and cogently.
Somewhere in one of the commentaries, the point was made that if we cannot thus express the hope that is in us then we really are living on nothing but delusion. I would maintain that this remains true even if that hope is in Christ. There are any number of ‘converts’ out there who have been told that having said the sinner’s prayer, or raised their hand and come to the altar, or filled out some card or other, that they are saved and have their ticket to heaven. They have been told they have hope, and they have been told that hope is in Christ. But, they have not been given understanding of what Christ has done or even why they had need of His work. They do not yet have hope, and it is questionable whether they have salvation. There’s a reason Peter does not encourage his readers to go for the emotional tug. He’s not advertising God, he’s trusting God.
Explain. Stay calm and help them understand. That stay calm part is key, as well. How shall you tell them how much you trust your God when you are reeling from fear of their threats? How shall you preach peace with the King by exploding in anger? How will you point to the reality of the Holy Spirit sent to abide in you when you cannot demonstrate the first of the fruits you say belong to the indwelt? The hope that is ours needs to be explained with patience, with clarity, with care taken not to fall on our Christianese shorthand terminologies. We cannot do this as being self-sufficient for the task. How, after all, shall we preach utter dependence upon God, who demonstrate by our actions and efforts a dependence only upon our own limited faculties?
But, hear this, as well: If we are to be ready to give reasons for our hope, we first have to know them. That comes of having been told ourselves, yes. But, it also comes of being diligent to research the Scriptures in our own right; that we may come to a more complete understanding. It comes of sitting under sound teaching. But, how shall we judge whether we are under sound teaching if we are not students ourselves?
Knowing alone, however, is not enough. It is necessary, but it is not enough. There is also the second part: We must be willing to speak. Consider the setting once more. Peter is talking about those in the midst of persecution, suffering for what is right. They are being called out by neighbors, coworkers, politicians or whomever, and they are being decried as the worst of miscreants. They may or may not be facing physical, even mortal danger. It is into this setting that Peter says, “Explain to them. Help them understand the hope you hold. Give them a reason to believe.” It is in this setting that he tells them to speak calmly and rationally. That alone is going to be a testimony to the hope that is in them! Here you are under threat of physical harm, and you behave as though this is just a friendly conversation. Either you’re insane or your God is real.
My God is real. My faith is real. My hope is more certain than the desk at which I type these words. The internet may fail. My hard-drive could crash in an instant and all this words be lost. America will almost certainly fade and fail in time. But, then, so will the enemies of the faith. God remains. I know my Redeemer lives. It’s not a possibility that I cling to, but a reality that I can count on. He will take His stand on the earth, and every knee shall bow to Him, whether willingly or otherwise. And even should my flesh have been destroyed, yet know this: From my flesh I shall see God. I will see Him through my own eyes, not some camera lens (Job 19:25-27). Though He should slay me, yet I will hope in Him (Job 13:15a). Even that cannot destroy this hope that is in me, for even then I have His sure and certain promises: I will see Him. Though the outer man is decaying, the inner man is being renewed day by day, and the momentary, light afflictions of this life are producing an eternal weight of glory far beyond compare (2Co 4:16-17).
Responding in Faith (12/03/14)
I have already addressed this point, but it deserves further consideration. As we make our apology for faith, Peter insists it be done with gentleness and reverence. Much is made of this point, and rightly so. It is very easy to slip into a fleshly response, particularly if the tone of the questioning is snide, cynical or angry. We are inclined to respond in kind, but to respond in kind is to effectively deny the very Gospel we would defend. We must, by the power of God, respond rather than react. If our response is not formed by His purpose and conformed to His character, it remains a work of the flesh, and will achieve nothing. Indeed, but for the mercy of God, it will almost certainly hinder the work that was intended.
So, then: Mortify the flesh in this. Refuse the offense. Be angry, yet sin not (Eph 4:26). Be angry at the enemy’s blinding of this one who stands before you. Be angry at the lies, but do not sin by acting out of a desire for vengeance. Rather, counter the lies with truth. Demonstrate the hope that is in you by its outworking in your quiet, respectful demeanor.
Every Christian an Apologist (12/03/14-12/04/14)
The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this is that we are all called to be apologists. Let me just say that this does not mean we are all called to be apologists at the same level. This is something I find the need to battle on a regular basis. We are all called to be students of the Word, proclaimers of the Word, people of prayer, worshipers of God. But, this does not require that you in your pursuit of study do so in the same fashion or degree as me. We are all called to prayer, but some are called to pray in a stronger calling, what we may speak of as intercessory prayer. They may refer to themselves as prayer warriors. But, if this prayer warrior concludes that his passion for prayer and his calling to pray mean everybody should be praying with this same fervency, a mistake is made. We are all to proclaim the word, but we are not all preachers. We are all to know fellowship and care for one another, we are not all shepherds. I don’t know if I’m expressing this point as well as I would like, but I suspect I’ve at least imparted the gist of it.
As it applies to this passage, we are all called to be able to explain the hope that is ours, which is to act the apologist. We are not all apologists on the level of, say, Ravi Zacharias. Some are raised up for a specific time and culture, with a particular gift for setting forth the Gospel in a fashion suited to that time and culture. This is something much different than cultural accommodation. Paul, preaching in Athens did not accommodate the culture of Athens. He acknowledged it. He understood it. He presented the Gospel in a fashion particularly suited to their way of thinking about things. But, he did not take upon himself all manner of Greek custom to make the Gospel look more Grecian and therefore more acceptable.
That said, it is quite rightly pointed out by our commentators, such as Matthew Henry, that every believer must clearly have the capacity to give the reason for their faith. And, it must be reasonable, this explanation. It will not do, in our society, to fall back on visions in the night or other supernatural phenomena as the reason for faith. These have their place, and ought not to be denied, but they will do nothing for imparting the Gospel to those who have questions for us. No, it is a reason for faith that we are to give. The apology, the defense, is a reasonable presentation of the facts, not a description of our emotional response to stimuli. If all we can offer by way of explanation is some event we experienced and the feelings that experience produced in us, we have nothing to offer. If all we have on offer is to point to some nebulous, perhaps even miraculous occurrence which cannot be proven to have ever taken place and which the listener is unlikely to experience for themselves, we are offering nothing better than family vacation pictures.
Even if these things are real events, and really played a huge part in our own conversion, if that’s where we’ve left it, we’re on shaky ground in our own right and can only offer shaky ground to the questioner. It must have proceeded from that point. Faith is not intended to be left hanging on thin air with nothing by way of support. No! Faith is so utterly reasonable. But, it requires some effort on the believer’s part to fully and truly assess the reasons, and to have them at hand to offer up should somebody ask. That hope Peter talks of: I’ve said it before – it’s not wishful thinking, it’s certain hope, absolute conviction. But, to have such absolute conviction, conviction must have a reason to believe. If it’s all built upon Christian mythology and superstition, it’s not reason to believe. Again, these things have their place and reality, but they are not the stuff of apology.
Listen, for my own part, conversion came by means most unreasonable. It was not a matter of visions, but it was certainly a matter of divine intervention. I dare say it always is, however that may be experienced. In my case, there were the simple things that could be written off as being merely impulsive. There was the agreeing to go on a weekend retreat without really considering. It was a yes out of my mouth before I had really thought what I might want to answer. But, more, there was the foreign thought in my head, the voice not audible but clearly other, positing one or two theorems and asking that the next few days be taken as a test of those theorems. Look, this is not the sort of conversion experience one is going to make into a successful movement. It is a most unlikely means of evangelism, but it was perfectly suited to my way of seeing things, and it worked. But, that was only a seed for faith. The reason for certainty took longer. The establishment of certain hope took longer. It is not built on that one event. It is not built, in the end, even on a string of events, although myriad events in life have shown the truth of it. It is built upon coming to understand who God Is, what He has said about Himself and what He has said about me. Events only serve to corroborate this information. They are the stuff of scientific experimentation, which can either support or refute the conclusions reason has reached. They have consistently supported what reason has found.
That’s what Mr. Henry is getting at. If you cannot present a comprehensible reason for the hope that is in you, for the faith that you hold, then those who come with their questions will be left to conclude you’re just chasing a pipe dream like everybody else. You give them no cause to suppose your religion any more real than the animism of the native tribesman, or the Hinduism of the immigrant family next door. You have given them no cause to suppose your truth bears any more consideration than the next man’s, and in today’s culture that presents a huge problem. Until we get to the point of being able to demonstrate the load-bearing nature of our truth, we will be hard pressed to convince anybody that our truth is the Truth. Oh, it is. There is no doubt about that. God is Truth, and Truth is just as unchanging as He is. But, the world holds no such perspective in regard to truth, having been trained to perceive truth as being no different than opinion. That increases our challenge, to be sure, but one of our primary tools in this challenging labor is logic – reason. Christianity is, at base, an utterly reasonable religion.
But, we must bear in mind the companion point; that however well-reasoned our presentation, if it is found that our character stands in stark contrast to what we present as right, then our words will be taken as hollow, empty things of no value. This is not to say that we must walk perfectly according to our understanding of God’s ways. We certainly ought to strive toward that end, but it is the fool who supposes he’s going to get there. If it were possible to walk in perfect obedience to the dictates of faith, there would be no Jesus come and died for our sins. We could have done it ourselves, and we would not need Him.
Part of the problem we have with public perceptions of hypocrisy consists in the fact that we have not presented the Gospel properly. We’ve presented, perhaps, an idealized view of Christianity and glazed over a few of the details. I don’t think it’s been intentional. Perhaps it’s just that we’re so anxious to impart the message that we only ever manage to do so in brief. Perhaps it’s because we’ve got such a works-infused perspective on evangelism that we fail at follow-up. Perhaps we’ve just absorbed too much of the culture. Whatever the case, we need to fix it, to present the Gospel in its fullness, to explain to a questioning public until they are able to understand not only the goal, but the nature of the journey that takes us there. And in this effort, as Barnes points out, even the humblest in Christian rank is a potentially valuable defender of the Truth! It is hard to imagine a greater privilege.
Calvin tells us that we ought to make it plain to these unbelievers that it is no impiety we hold, but true religion. That, after all, was the primary concern at the time. You are angering the gods by worshiping this foreign deity. That is why so much evil has befallen you and our city as well. That is why we are coming after you as we are. Today a portion of our challenge is dealing with exactly the reverse situation. Where there is a religious sense at all, it is often with immigrants who have brought their religion with them in the form of Buddhism, Hinduism or Islamism. No doubt at least the last group views us as impious dogs. But, in all these cases the call remains the same (and we can add followers of Judaism, Jainism and any number of other isms to the list). In most every case, the one who pursues a religion holds that religion to be the only true religion, and as such must, at some level, suppose every other religion to be impious. That must be overcome, but not by force. If we are to overcome these false religions, it shall be by a well-reasoned presentation of the Truth accompanied by the evidence of a life clearly impacted and lived by that truth.
However, we have another category to deal with in our day, consisting in the agnostics and atheists. How would this apply? They do not see us as impious. How could they, who hold there is no god? Piety requires a god. But, they are convinced that our beliefs are inane at best, perhaps outright evil as measured by what they perceive to be the impact on society. We could, perhaps, take an approach akin to that which Francis Schaeffer used, demonstrating that definitions of good and evil require something outside of oneself to have meaning. If good and evil are whatever I think them to be, then they are a moving target and frankly, the atheist’s perception of what is evil is no more valid than he thinks mine to be. We could, perhaps, attempt to convince the atheist that indeed he does have a god, whether it be the god of humanism or the god of self. We should be quite correct in this, but I doubt we’ll get far with such an argument.
It is a challenge, a great challenge. But, it is a challenge that is best met without argument. If we fall into argument or, worse yet, angry defense of our rights against their assault, what do we do but offer them further proof that our religion is false? This gets us right back around to Peter’s point, doesn’t it? We don’t argue, we explain. We don’t get angry and start yelling. We remain calm, reasonable and at peace. After all, if they don’t accept the Truth, this has no impact on the Truth and no impact on us, really. It’s their loss. We may sorrow after their intransigence. Indeed, we ought to sorrow, for their loss shall be great indeed. But, the watchman is not responsible for the response to his warning, only for delivering that warning as clearly and cogently as possible. Here is the truth. You may accept it. You may not. That’s not up to me. But, I shall be praying for you. Yes, I get that you don’t particularly appreciate that. But, really, it’s not about you. It’s about the God I serve commanding that I do so.
Matthew Henry takes the interesting step of pointing us back to the Law for some instruction on how to present the Gospel. He directs our attention to Leviticus 10:3 – By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy. I will be honored before all the people. Note how this reflects the instruction we have from Peter: Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. I cannot get beyond that verse, it seems! Indeed: Ascribe to the Lord the holiness that is His. Ascribe to the Lord the majesty that is His. Set Him in His rightful place in your heart of hearts, and what must follow? If you properly assess that He is holy, then your thoughts, your words, your actions; all of these must surely reflect that assessment. If you know God is holy, treat Him as holy! Honor Him. Honor Him when they’re looking. Honor Him when they’re not. Honor Him by being wholly and utterly unashamed to speak of His goodness and holiness. Honor Him by living in a way (and here I come to Mr. Henry’s point) that incites others to glorify Him.
That is, or ought to be, the goal of every believer: That others would join us in glorifying God. Think on how often that idea appears in the Gospels as they cover the ministry of Jesus. This or that happens, ‘and they were all glorifying God’. This didn’t refer to the disciples, at least not alone. It didn’t refer to the one who had just had benefit of some miracle. It was the whole crowd gathered around, many of whom might be assumed to have been skeptical. For that matter, consider the scene at the Crucifixion. Here is Jesus, beaten, bleeding and broken, hanging on a cross like some particularly vile criminal. But, He does not respond to the jeering crowds with insults or anger. He does not revile the Romans for this abuse. He does not denounce the priests as agents of the devil. He cries out for them to be forgiven! How’s that again? He does not even truly die from their tortures, but chooses for Himself the moment of His death. Think how surprising they found it when He was dead already. These criminals were supposed to remain in agony for days, not pass in hours. And, what was the immediate result of this? The very soldiers who had raised Him up on that cross looked upon the end result and said, “Surely, this was the Son of God” (Mt 27:54, Mk 15:39). They glorified God because His words and actions demonstrated the holiness of the all-powerful God of heaven and earth Who alone commanded Him.
Therein lies our example.
Christian Conscience (12/04/14)
In all of this effort we are to behave in such a fashion as leaves us with a good conscience. And here, I think we must recognize that Peter is looking back not just across the idea of defending the Gospel, but across all of his discussion of suffering. In your suffering, don’t allow your actions to give cause for bad conscience. Don’t act contrary to the hope that is in you. Don’t get mad and don’t get even. Don’t allow them to goad you into doing something that would justify the suffering. Remain true. Neither, let the suffering convince you that you’ve done something wrong and either God is mad at you for what you’ve done or he’s no god at all and the other gods are angry.
If you suffer, let us be clear: it is by God’s will. He’s not ashamed to say so. I’m not sure why we so often are. But, if you are suffering and it is by God’s will, better by far that suffering may come in spite of doing what is right rather than coming as punishment for having done wrong! We’ve been through this. Suffering justly is just, to be sure. But, it is not cause for kudos. Augustine wrote, “Not the suffering, but the cause for which one suffers, makes the martyr.” Consider what was happening then. This was the period of greatest persecution for the Christians in Roman territories. But, there were those who were actively seeking out the chance to become a martyr. Yes, yes! Kill me! There were others, I doubt not, who, having been pulled up on legitimate charges, tried to set forth that their deaths were due not to their crimes, but to their faith.
There are plenty in our own day and age who attempt to make Christianity an answer to their guilt. It is the answer to guilt, but not in that fashion. It is not to be held out as an excuse, as some stamp that says you no longer have to repay. I’ve seen it happen. “I’m a Christian now. I can’t be responsible for what my old self did. He’s dead and his debts with him.” No. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, sanctifying the holy God of all as Lord in your hearts would require quite the opposite, that you not only accept responsibility for your actions, but even seek to go above and beyond in making things right! It’s not the response, it’s the cause.
Let your actions be such as deserve no punishment and let your response to what punishment may come be such as leaves conscience clear, knowing you have continued to honor God as you ought, even in your suffering. Let your demeanor demonstrate that hope that is in you; let it reflect your absolute trust in this One who is Lord of you.
I really appreciate this comment from Barnes. “A true Christian should aim, by incessant study and prayer, to know what is right, and then always do it, no matter what may be the consequences.” Orthodoxy and orthopraxy: The two must walk together or they fall apart. It’s not enough to know what is right. Knowledge of truth without acting in truth achieves nothing. To borrow the point from James 2:19, the devil has that much going for him. But, it hasn’t brought him any nearer to salvation. By the same token, doing good in absence of knowledge of good is insufficient, I suspect, if not simply impossible. Were it possible to do good without knowing good from evil, would we have the Scriptures given us? Would we have the Son? Did we do good for love of what is good, or simply by accident? If we have no proper definition for good, how can we love what is good? We are back in the days of the Judges, each man doing what is good in his own sight. It would seem the world has not changed quite so much as our enlightened peers tend to think.
One final word of caution as regards conscience: While it is never safe to act against conscience, it is not always safe to act according to conscience either. The latter is only safe when conscience is informed by a heart that sanctifies God as holy Lord. “Let your conscience be your guide,” may easily be the most terrible advice ever given. Conscience is not revelation! It does not, cannot reveal new truths to you. It is not intended to be the imparter of truth. The faculty does not exist to do so! No, what conscience does as assess current events based upon prior input. A conscience fed on Truth, fed by ‘incessant study and prayer’; that you may put some confidence in. Such a conscience is properly trained to assess what you’re doing now. Such a conscience will therefore prompt you to do your proper duty according to what is right. But, that is a far cry from being the arbiter of rightness. God alone defines Right. Conscience can only hope to have been so advised of Right as to be able to direct accordingly.
