New Thoughts (12/21/14-12/30/14)
The Points Contrasted (12/24/14)
The difficulties of interpreting this passage cannot be overstated. Looking back across my earlier comments, I see that there were many questions I left open. I am pleased to say that after reading through these several commentaries I find those questions pretty well answered. I am also pleased to say that it is clear I am not the first to struggle towards a correct understanding of Peter’s meaning.
There are some very key factors that determine how this is to be understood. The first and overarching factor, of course, is context. I will have more to say on that later, but it must be here at the outset. Peter has not suddenly decided to spend a paragraph on some totally unrelated topic. As such, we cannot consider the meaning of this section without maintaining its connection to all that has preceded it. To that end, let it be remembered that Peter is discussing the matter of unjust suffering, or suffering for the sake of righteousness. His message is one of comfort for those so afflicted, and of encouragement to persevere in faith. The connection of this theme with the present passage is made clear as he turns our attention to Jesus, whose suffering was that of ‘the just for the unjust’. If ever there was one whose suffering was undeserved, it was He.
So, then, let us understand this connection. Let us recognize that what follows, in all its complexity, is aimed at giving comfort to the afflicted and giving them strong cause and encouragement to persevere. That will help us as we interpret.
A second key factor in making our understanding clear is to be found in the contrast of flesh and spirit which Peter sets forth. What had transpired with Jesus could certainly have been conveyed without reference to this contrast. He died, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Is that not sufficient? But, we are given more details. He died in the flesh. He was resurrected in the spirit. Mind you, there is no definite article to be found in either clause. This, too, is important to know.
Why is this contrast so critical to our understanding? Because whatever it is we are to understand made Him alive, or in what condition, that same carries us into the next verse regarding the prisoners. I could also point out that what we have here serves as a firm refutation of those heresies that came about which sought to diminish or divide the God-man.
Start with this: He died in the flesh. It was real. This was no phantasm, no mass delusion. He had lived a real, human life, and He died a real, human death. But, as Barnes points out, Peter’s specifying of the nature of what was put to death requires us to understand that in some other respect, He did not die. That pushes us to consider the resurrection in the spirit as a point made for the purpose of contrast. The Divine nature, the God part, did not die, cannot die. That which is eternal couldn’t possibly cease. That seems pretty obvious when you state it that way, but I think we have a propensity for thinking otherwise.
An ancillary challenge comes about in determining how exactly He was made alive in the spirit. Is this, as some propose, to be understood as the Holy Spirit performing the work of revivication? There is nothing in the rest of Scripture to suggest any such office to the Spirit, although both Father and Son are spoken of as having the authority to impart life. More to the point, though, we have Jesus’ own words on the subject. “I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again” (Jn 10:18). The discussion is His life. Go back a verse. “I lay down My life that I may take it again” (Jn 10:17). This is no passive tense activity where some outside force (the Spirit) performs the taking up. No! He takes it again Himself on His own authority. So, then, the spirit of which Peter writes must be understood to be His own; His eternal divine nature.
This does not make His death any less real. The flesh most assuredly died. The soul, if we wish to speak of that separately, made its way to Hell. This much we must hold as true, for Scripture insists. What does “He ascended,” mean except that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself He who ascended far above all things, so that He fills all things (Eph 4:9-10). Is it reasonable to say this was the soul and not the spirit? Or is there need to distinguish in this case? There remain certain challenges that I think may require us to maintain the threefold view. For one, as Barnes points out, the term zooopoieetheis which we have here never indicates preservation, always resurrection. I.e. that which was made alive must first have been dead for this term to apply. And, as we are not, at least in this specific context, looking at a matter of the body restored to life, what remains? His spirit never died, being incapable of death. His body of flesh was put to death, but He was resurrected in spirit. Oh dear. Am I even permitted to substitute soul on this occasion?
I believe I can. The sense becomes that His Spirit, His Divinity, effected His resurrection, and yes, His resurrection was a bodily resurrection as well as reviving His soul. But, given the apparent contrast that Peter is setting up, it seems the body is less in view with this mention of resurrection, which leaves the soul. In truth, though, I think Peter’s primary intent is to set forth a contrast between the era of earthly ministry and that which preceded it, and he sets out that contrast by pointing to what followed. It was His Divine Spirit by which He revived His dead body. It was His Divine Spirit which (verse 19) went and made proclamation. We shall return to the matter of when, where and what He proclaimed, but let it be understood that it was Spirit, not flesh, in which He did so.
But, we should also understand the singular importance of Peter’s specifying that He died in the flesh. The heresy was already begun. Consider John’s letters to his charges. “Many deceivers have gone out, refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2Jn 7). And don’t miss John’s conclusion. “This is antichrist.” Peter’s purpose here does not appear to be that of countering heresy, and yet, there is this strong affirmation of the absolute reality of Jesus Christ Incarnate. He really lived in real flesh and in the real flesh He suffered and died. Note, too, this most important bit of doctrine tucked in there for good measure. He suffered for sins ‘once for all’.
Here, we are at a point on which all the faithful are agreed. Calvinist and Arminian will stand arm and arm on this point and concur that Christ was put to death in His human nature and revived by the power of His Divinity. He lives! And because He lives, we have hope of life. Indeed, if we take the whole chain of events that Peter has set out, we have the means presented in His death, the court’s acceptance in His resurrection, and the anchor of hope in His ascension.
The sins He died for were not His own, but ours. That is a key factor here, as we are discussing unjust suffering. Here is the height of injustice, that He should undergo such shame, humiliation and torture – the Son of God! – having done absolutely nothing wrong. He was not guilty of any crime against man or state. He was not guilty of any crime against heaven. And yet, He bore the full weight of every sin of every man and woman in every age from the first sin of Adam to the last sin of the last man standing before He returns. And you wish to complain about your trials? But, Peter does not present this as rebuke. He presents it for encouragement. He bore up, and He did so for you! He did so once for all. When it was over, it was over forever. So, too, your trials. They are but a season. They will pass, and when they have passed they are passed forever. Eternity remains ahead of you.
Jesus is set before us here as looking beyond Himself to the purposes of the kingdom. He set aside His heavenly prerogatives. Beyond that, as we have seen unfolding through various parts of this study (and the study of Genesis this last semester) that He had entered covenant with the other Persons of the Godhead before the first effort of creation began. Indeed, I think it was Barnes who brought forward the point that this moment of His death and resurrection, and more specifically that which He accomplished through this moment, was so glorious in God’s sight that it more than justified all His own grief and sorrow in the Fall of Creation. All the patient waiting that we are pointed to by mention of Noah; all the agony that we are pointed to by the cross; the constant irritant of sinful man and the deep sorrow over every soul of man or angel lost to unrepentant rebellion: All of that was worth it. All of that was set in the balance against the glorious plan of Redemption and the scales indicated that there was no comparison. “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Ro 8:18). Paul’s just reflecting God’s own view in those words! Peter encourages us to do the same.
Let us understand this point, as well: Nothing in the nature of Justice required Jesus to come and suffer unjustly. God would remain perfectly Just had He simply issued a blanket condemnation of all mankind and moved straight to sentencing. But, He did not do so. Again: This plan, with its offer of redemption to those who could not hope to redeem themselves, was so magnificent that He fashioned an entire universe just so it could play out! It wasn’t required of Him. Indeed, nothing is required of Him except that which He chooses to require of Himself. And He chose this! He chose the course that led to unmitigated suffering – for a season. For the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, despising the shame. And now, He has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb 12:2). And, here, too the author is setting this out as encouragement. “Fix your eyes on Jesus, who is Author and Perfector of faith.” See what He endured so you won’t lose heart.
This, it seems to me, takes us to the heart of Peter’s message. Take upon yourself the kingdom perspective. See beyond the moment, even if that moment is chronic. Time, which is itself an aspect of the created order, makes these things loom large. I consider my wife’s situation, and I have to recognize that this may seem callous advice. Yes, you’ve been dealing with this illness for twenty odd years. And yes, though I cannot imagine you’d want to hear it, you may very well be dealing with it for twenty odd years more. But, look beyond it! What if God decides not to heal you until the hereafter? I know. Easy for me to say. I’m not in the midst of that suffering. No, but we all have our crosses to bear. We all have our own personal agonies that seemingly never relent. It’s not a question of whose suffering is greater.
It’s a question of perspective. When you’re in the midst, will you spend your energy on bewailing circumstance, or will you lift your eyes to Him who is greater than the mountains? You belong to the One who made heaven and earth, and He has declared that He will not allow your foot to slip (Ps 121:1-3). This illness, for all that it hurts and for all that it humiliates, does not constitute a slip of your foot. He will maintain your faith secure in Him. He will bring you through to the end. And in that end, you will see (though you don’t see it now), that those years were but a moment, the merest blink of an eye, compared to that eternity that remains for you to enjoy. Christ looked to the kingdom rather than to His humiliating present. Can we do likewise? Certainly not on the same scale, but can we, through that same Spirit which resurrected our Lord and King, come to share His heavenward focus? I think we can. Peter thinks we can. That’s why he brought it up!
Life Comes Through Death (12/25/14)
While it is critical to settle the fact that Jesus lived and died in the flesh, a real human being in every way, there is more to be understood from this contrast of flesh and spirit. In reality it is a dual contrast, flesh and spirit being one set. The other set is death and life, and take note of the order in which they are presented. We are inclined to think of life as ending in death. Arguably, the great mass of humanity is rather counting on that being the true and natural order of things. But, the Bible turns that on its head. In Jesus Christ we are given to understand that life comes through death. In the most critical matter of the spirit, we are born dead, every one of us.
There was something I read recently which sought to establish at what point this sin nature takes over, or to establish that there could be no such point. If there is an age of accountability, the writer posited, there is at very least one second (or microsecond, or lesser division be it ever so small) of innocence which precedes that age. That being the case, there exists at least that briefest moment during which, if one were to die, he would die innocent of any sin. But, this rather misses the point. “In sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5b). There is no such moment. From inception, you were dead.
This should increase our great concern for the unborn. There are many devout Christians who, considering the fate of those babies slaughtered in the womb, feel they must be innocent and therefore suffer no threat of hell. It may well be that God demonstrates His mercy towards these defenseless murder victims, but the nature of their passing does not alter this central tenet of Scripture. “In sin my mother conceived me.” I was born a dead man, conceived as one already under the full penalty of the Law. Since the Fall, which is to say every human being ever to come into existence, there has been no such thing as an innocent youth. There has not been so much as an innocent zygote. We are born into death, and our only hope of life lies in the One Who came and died for us, taking upon Himself the penalty for our guilt, bearing our due punishment that we might live.
That is what this Christmas morning is really all about. Yes, we celebrate this one baby who alone was born sinless, born truly into life. Yes, we rejoice at what was brought into this world from the virgin womb of Mary, for that which is born of flesh is flesh. Had He been born Joseph’s son by nature, He would be a sinner as we are sinners, conceived in sin. But, He was not thus conceived. This was necessary. This was the only hope of a man living a sinless life. That sinless life was necessary for His sacrifice to carry any weight with the court of heaven. Had He been conceived in the natural fashion, His death would have been in the natural fashion; the due punishment for sin. But, he was born sinless, He lived sinless, He died sinless. He died that we might live.
This is such an astounding matter that one finds the Apostles constantly stirred to utmost awe by the thought. What manner of love is this? In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. If God so loved us, we should love one another (1Jn 4:10-11). He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things (Ro 8:32)?
But, they saw that the reality of the human condition was quite the opposite of what men generally suppose. It is not that life persists until death shall come. It is that death persists until life has come. That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies (1Co 15:36). We know this, I think, and yet we tend to insist on looking at it the other way. The plant lives so long as it does, goes to seed, and then dies. But, the reality is that the seed continues to live, to carry those germs of life which cannot burst forth except the seed is first dead and buried. This analogy serves well to demonstrate the power and purpose of Jesus, who came into life in order to die, who accepted death that there might be Life. That Life, as Peter demonstrates in this dual contrast of his, is primarily in spirit. The tent of the flesh may pass away, rather like the husk of the seed. But, the germ of life, the spirit, persists.
To be clear, Scripture does indeed indicate a bodily resurrection. Jesus, when He was resurrected, made certain His disciples had tactile proof of this. Touch Me. Put here your hand and believe. I am no shade, no ghost. I remain fully man, more fully Man than could have been the case beforehand. For, as Paul points out, this corporeal body is not sufficient to eternity. Eternity requires a better body, and this is provided us in the resurrection. This flesh may fade, but it is not big thing. Life is eternal, and for those who are truly in Christ, this is a most marvelous blessing.
It is only fair to point out, though, that the life of the spirit will persist for the condemned as well. “It is appointed for men once to die, after which comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). This verse must also clearly inform our understanding of what Peter does and does not mean to say in our present passage, for Scripture does not, cannot contradict itself. It is only our own cognitive limitations which make it appear to do so on occasion. Oh! That we would have the humility of mind to recognize that we aren’t nearly so bright as we like to suppose! His ways are indeed higher than our own, and His truth far more solid and substantial than our best opinions.
But, see that: There is a judgment upon death. It should be understood that this judgment is the sentencing phase. The facts are already established, and the decision of the Court is final. All that remains is the denouement. Will eternity be spent in the Paradise of God, the New Jerusalem come down? Or, will eternity be spent wholly, knowingly separated from His presence under eternal punishment for crimes against the Most High God? There is no place for reprieve here. Understand that as we move forward into the more difficult aspects of the passage. Whatever Peter is saying, it is assuredly not that there was some subset of humanity reserved after death for this last-ditch opportunity to repent. No, repentances is for this life. God’s patience has a terminus. When patience has run out, judgment comes. It’s there in the image of the Flood which Peter sets before us. God’s patience ran its course, but there were only the eight saved – and, as one of our commentators points out, even there, one was reprobate.
But, hear the good news of this child born of a virgin, born to die: Yes, He died. His flesh bore the pain of a most vile and torturous end. But, He did not die by the will of man. He laid down His own life. Even the Romans who served as the instruments of His death could not fail to recognize this fact. He’s dead already? How is that possible? The whole point of this punishment is to draw out the agony for days. But, no. He laid down His own life on His own authority, and on that same authority, He took it back up. Death is conquered. We need not submit to the circumstances of our birth. There is hope born this day!
You see, His death, and only His death, suffices to clear the record. The sentence has been written for each one of us from conception. “Before I was conceived, You knew me.” Yes, already He had the full measure of you. Already, He was fully aware of every sin. Already, your guilt was recorded, awaiting only the day of your fleshly death. But, His death is given in your stead. It is not an eraser, blotting out the record, but rather, the due penalty paid in full. The sentence has not changed; only the outcome. And, more amazing yet, His death did not just pay for the sins of one man. It was most assuredly sufficient to pay the bill for every man or woman who ever has been or ever shall be conceived. But, it is equally certain that this payment is not applied to every penalty. It is for those whom God has determined. In His own wise counsel, He has mercy on whom He wills, and visits His wrath on whom He wills. And in all of this, He remains perfectly Just. If there was not found so much as one man upon whom He opted to have mercy, He would still remain perfectly Just. But, in Christ, He has been made both Just and Justifier (Ro 3:26).
The thing is, if we would enter into the power of His resurrected Life, we must be willing to suffer in the flesh. We must bear His death if ever we are to manifest His life. This message comes across in many different ways through the pages of the New Testament. Take up your cross and follow Me. He who would save his own life shall lose it. But, most poignantly, we have this reality displayed for us every time we witness a fellow believer entering the waters of baptism. Paul makes it abundantly clear what is going on here. We have entered the Flood. We have entered that death which was due our sins. But, we are raised from those waters by the same spirit which restored the life of our Savior! We are raised again into a newness of life, made dead to sin and sin’s power; made alive to holiness and joy.
It is because He died that we have the opportunity to truly live. It is because He lives that we live in the true and certain hope that is established in Him. His death alone would not, could not have changed a thing about our circumstance. But, His resurrection stands as proof that the Atonement offered in His flesh was accepted by God. Life has come through death, and death is a conquered foe. In Him, the Truth is established that though we die, yet we live. Though our enemies may come against us daily, though they should even put us to death as is happening around the globe, yet we live. God is for us! What can man do? We shall not fear those who can kill the flesh and have exhausted their power in that act. No! We shall revere Him Who is able to kill both flesh and spirit. And He has called Himself our Father. He has called us His sons and daughters. He has called us friend. Merry Christmas indeed!
God’s Forebearance (12/26/14)
Before I address the matter of that proclamation of Jesus directly, I want to skip forward to verse 20, and consider what was happening. I do this for two reasons. First, it provides yet another strong indicator as to what Peter is talking about. Second, it presents a matter deserving of comment in its own right. That verse brings in the matter of God’s patience. He is spoken of as waiting. He was waiting throughout the period in which Noah built the ark, that being some 120 years.
Now, 120 years seems a very long time to us. But, I wonder if it seemed so to them. Consider that the average lifespan in that period was apparently still measured in centuries rather than decades. Let us say 500 years was the median. If that is the right value, we’re looking at something like an eighth of a man’s life. So, we could perhaps account it as equivalent to a decade of waiting in relation to our own lifespan. Mind you, we are not attempting to lay down some hard and fast rule in regard to the patience of God. His patience is not for us to define, only to appreciate. In fairness, time being a function of creation, it really has no direct impact on God. He is outside of creation. He is the one for whom we are told a thousand years is like a year. Indeed, even that is rather exaggerated, I suspect. The entire span of human history is, from His perspective, less than the blink of an eye, had He an eye to blink. He it is who knows the end from the beginning, and this is both because beginning and end are both by His decree; and then also because they are effectively concurrent events from His perspective. Those 120 years of waiting were time passing for those unwittingly experiencing reprieve and for those who preached. It was the merest moment for He who was waiting in patience.
The point, however, is not the duration of God’s patience. Neither is it His experience of that patient waiting. Whether He feels the pressure of waiting or not does not enter into it. The point is that He waited at all, that any opportunity was given for repentance. God would be perfectly within His rights and perfectly Just had He simply pronounced sentence upon first infraction. You blew it. You pay the price. Case closed. But, He didn’t. He would be perfectly Just to leave us to our own devices when it comes to repentance. You were created with a brain and with conscience. You know you were wrong. You conclude that enough is enough and you’re going to walk upright henceforth. Not one man would have done so, but it could have been left at that and our condemnation would again be utterly just.
But, God went above and beyond. He inspired His servant Noah to preach as he labored. And, let there be no doubt but that this ark Noah was building was something that caught the attention of his neighbors and countrymen. It’s not like he lived near the ocean. It’s not like he was even nautically inclined. Even if he were, the scale of the thing would defy anyone’s sense of what was reasonable. So, doubt not that men came with questions and with ridicule for this madman and his sons. But, that was part of the plan. They asked, and Noah was ready to answer. He was ready to answer because through him, Christ Himself was preaching. He was delivering the message that sinful acts required the death penalty.
Was he also delivering the message of the Gospel? It cannot be said with certainty. The term Peter has chosen here bespeaks a more general sort of proclamation. But, a call to repentance which did not include the hope of life upon answering would seem a rather worthless call. Repent and be saved is a message to entice. Repent and die anyway is unlikely to get much of a hearing. It’s possible, I suppose, that He was preaching a condemnatory message, simply informing them of the cost of their rebellious ways, but it hardly seems to fit the message Peter is delivering here. First, it is rather out of character for what we see of Jesus preaching in His earthly ministry, or God preaching more generally. Second, it would have nothing to do with patient waiting.
It could be posited that God’s patience was being displayed towards Noah only, that His patience consisted solely in waiting for the ark to be finished. But, where is the patience in it? He could have simply provided the ark. But, He did not do so, instead planning for this period. Further, His patience is connected to that time of proclamation. I would maintain His patience is most thoroughly on display in that He continued to make proclamation throughout that period in spite of there being no least evidence of repentance in those who heard.
Consider the pastor today who has faithfully proclaimed the full message of the Bible to his congregation for a decade or so. He has seen no growth in his charges. He is painfully aware of the persistent, willful sins of those to whom he preaches. He has tried evangelistic efforts, but not one new face is to be found in attendance. Or, consider the missionary to some far country, who has spent a decade now explaining God to the locals, but while they accept his gifts and his food, they do not accept his message, so far as he can see. How much longer will such a man continue in his efforts before he just gives up and seeks more fruitful labors?
But, here is their encouragement! Christ Himself went through just such a period. Here He is, preaching to a world in darkness for some 120 years, and all He has to show for it is the eight people He started with. And, we know from reading ahead that at least one of those eight will fall away when all is said and done. But, He is patient. He sows the seed of the message of God, and measures His results not by the crops that grow before His eyes, but by His own faithfulness to God.
He has spoken the words He was given to speak, and the result is up to the One Who appoints the days of a man. If it was so for Him, to be sure, it is so for His servants! Consider the prophets who would come to Israel through the centuries. Theirs was a particularly sad lot, I think. They came at times when the very people God had chosen to call His own had chosen to ignore Him if not to deny Him outright. They came when it seemed the seed of God’s Word was at its least fruitful. Preaching was going nowhere. The temple was busy, but that busyness had more of the marketplace to it than the holy. Sacrifices were being offered with abandon, but also without thought. Nobody was righteous. Nobody was serving God. Nobody was caring for the poor or the widow. Nobody was even concerned that nobody was doing anything for anybody but themselves.
And here comes the prophet, proclaiming the holiness of God, reminding people of the rules, pointing out to them just how far they were off course. Nobody wanted to hear it. Give us preachers of prosperity! Preach to us of how God is going to save our sorry hides from whatever calamity we have brought about this time. But, don’t come telling us how it’s our fault. Oh no! We have pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament to tell us how effective their preaching was. The history of God’s people is a progression, to be sure, but it is pretty consistently in a downward spiral. Yet, God does not give up. No! We hear Jesus making this point in His own preaching. He sent this one. You imprisoned him. He sent that one. You beat him. He sent another. You killed him. Now, He sends His Son, and your response is to destroy Him as well, thinking that then you’ll finally have the place to yourself. But, still He comes with that same message: Repent and be saved. That’s patience!
The warning is delivered still. As I wrote yesterday, the message from Hebrews is that it is given to man once to die, and then comes the judgment. Repent while time remains! Patience endures, but patience comes to an end. You have heard the message. You are seeing the results of ignoring it. But, the time to repent is now. Those in Noah’s day were, I suspect, hearing this very message. But, they did not repent then. They died unrepentant, and if there is one thing we can be certain of it is this: The opportunity for repentance ends at the grave. If it did not, you could be assured that every reprobate who ever died found immediate cause to repent on the other side. Faced with the reality of hell, there is none so hardened as would not seek another chance.
But, that would not be justice. To firmly impose sentence on one and all without exception would be just. But, to blithely ignore the Law in every case, and say, “Oh well! It doesn’t really matter. Be free”? Nobody will count that as just. The judge who never imposes the due penalty for crime is no judge. Mercy is not required of Justice. It is God’s prerogative.
So, then: For 120 years, as Noah built he preached. He preached by the very present spirit of Christ. There is the primary point Peter makes. He preached with patience, serving as our model for what Peter was saying in the preceding section. Be ready to make a defense to any who ask (1Pe 3:15). That was Noah’s life for this period. Oh, and those who heard his answer were unimpressed. Derision was their most likely response. And still he preached, and he preached with the hope that was in him, not the anger which would deny his words. He preached by the spirit of Christ in him, and was most effective in his preaching, whatever appearances might suggest. His effectiveness was not to be measured in number of converts. Nor is ours. His effectiveness was to be measured in his adherence to the Truth of God, both in word and in example. This, he did, and he was saved together with his immediate family; eight souls out of all who lived.
And have no doubt as to the outcome. “By faith Noah, warned about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Heb 11:7). Note that well! He condemned the world. Those who died in the Flood died unrepentant. There are those who seek to suggest that as the waters rose, many repented and believed. But, Scripture offers us no grounds to suppose this is the case. Patience was over. The time for repentance had passed, and they did not do so. When once the sentence is passed and punishment pronounced, it’s over. Showy sorrow as you leave the stand, expressions of remorse on the way to the gallows; these avail you naught. Those who died were assuredly cast into hell at that very moment they died. This is the imprisonment to which Peter directs us.
Preaching to Prisoners (12/27/14)
We are now prepared to contemplate these prisoners to whom Jesus preached. When I pursued this earlier, I left it an unanswered question just what Peter was saying. Combing through the commentaries, I can take comfort in the fact that those authors have also faced difficulties in arriving at the interpretation.
Even Calvin appears to have got the answer quite wrong on this occasion. He reasons that since Christ apparently went to the nether regions to preach, we must consider the terminology for prison to properly arrive at the definition of those imprisoned spirits. He argues for a secondary meaning of that term to apply here: that of keeping watch. Thus, these are not so much souls imprisoned as souls keeping watch. Ergo, the prisoners are the godly who died prior to the Flood, when the hope to which they held together with us was as yet far off. While this alternate meaning does indeed exist, it is not clear at all that it applies. Calvin’s answer leaves unanswered the question of why Jesus would preach to the righteous who died in the Flood, and, for that matter, how it is that there were any righteous who died in the Flood in the first place. In short, it seems that on this occasion the presupposition as to the time of Christ’s preaching has forced the interpretation of all else, and led to an invalid result.
In fact, even the editor of his commentary feels the need to correct the record, pointing to the very matter that leads to misunderstanding. Said editor notes that the idea Peter is conveying is that these prisoners were disobedient in life. They are imprisoned in death. From Peter’s perspective, the state of being imprisoned was present-tense and is expressed as such. Their situation continues to be present-tense from our perspective, and ever shall be.
There is another issue to be taken with Calvin’s conclusion, which is that it supposes some form of Limbo or holding area for the dead prior to judgment. That is a particular feature of Catholic theology and, as has been pointed out in one or the other of the commentaries, it is largely founded on the misinterpretation of this very passage, finding no basis anywhere else in Scripture. I confess I’ve heard attempts to elucidate exactly such a holding area by those outside the Catholic church, but it’s the exception case, and equally tenuous. The theory adds the supports of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man who died, where we find Lazarus in Abraham’s Bosom, and the rich man in Hades across some impassable divide. These are the two chambers of Sheol, the theory runs: Paradise and Hades. Neither is the permanent and final destination, although no hope remains of altering that final destination.
I am not quite as quick to discount this theory, in so much as there is not only this depiction of the situation in parable form, but also Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43), as well as Paul’s assertion that Jesus did indeed descend into Hell before Ascending into heaven (Eph 4:9-10). Given that the descent preceded the ascent, and the ascent was not until at least three days subsequent to death, where, then, were He and the thief together ‘today’? But, then, I am reminded that there exists that realm which is outside of time, where God is eternally. In that place, what point would not be ‘today’? Though we experience the linear unfolding of time here, this does not necessitate that we suppose the same linear unfolding of time there. Indeed, we cannot suppose the case, for Scripture is quite clear on the fact that this does not apply. So, even this seeming support for some intermediate place of holding falls short.
How, then, are we supposed to understand Peter’s point? My comments in the preceding sections of this study have set the stage for understanding, and I have to say that the remainder of those commentaries I generally consult concur on the meaning in spite of their disagreements on many points of theology. Clarke explains that we are seeing the Spirit of Christ preaching through Noah. There is the patience of God displayed for the 120 years of ark construction. He utterly rejects the thought that Christ was preaching in Hell or some such place, or that He went to deliver the residents thereof. On that last point I am not so sanguine. But, let it stand. It is not the topic of interest just now.
Matthew Henry, Barnes, and the JFB all concur on this. The mistake Calvin has made is in supposing that the preaching occurred after the death of Christ when in fact it occurred long before His incarnation. The preaching was in spirit, and His Spirit is eternal. It did not require the removal of His corporeal body to do this preaching, for He is eternal. He existed prior to His body just as fully as He exists subsequent to His death. He was restored to what He had known forever and will know forevermore. None of this escapes Calvin, to be sure, but somehow it gets lost in considering this passage. I can well understand, for I was just as lost.
But, here it is: They heard the Truth preached. If they had not heard it before Noah began his work, they assuredly heard it thereafter. They had opportunity. The seed was planted. Repentance could have resulted, but it did not. Their condemnation was just. The common mistake made in reading through what Peter says here is in supposing the preaching was done in prison. The flow of time in Peter’s thoughts is not made clear to such degree as would prevent any chance of misunderstanding. But, let it be seen: The Spirit of Christ preached through Noah in the years prior to the Flood. Those who observed his odd project heard the Gospel. Again, let it be noted that the terminology here does not specify an evangelical Gospel message, but I cannot arrive at a reason the message would have been anything else. They heard. They rejected. The warning was given, but the warning was ignored. Failing to heed the call to life, they chose death and in death they are most firmly imprisoned, reserved for judgment in the last day.
Now, as I bring in mention of being reserved for judgment, it could again stir up thoughts of some holding tank somewhere. But, I am convinced that this language is used to accommodate our thinking as it is shaped by present experience. It is a means of fitting these events outside of time to our linear perception of time. From our vantage point, there is this last day which is some unknown and unknowable distance into the future. From God’s vantage point, that distant future moment is simultaneous with the distant past moment of the first day of creation, and with everything that has transpired in between. It is also simultaneous with everything prior to the first day and subsequent to the last. Where there is no time there can only be the permanent now, and even that introduces a time-laden concept into a timeless situation.
Let us settle the matter of what prisoners Peter has in view, for here he actually is quite specific. They are those who were disobedient when Noah was alive and the Flood had not yet come. That’s a pretty specific audience. Indeed, it is so specific that for us to read any other interpretation here requires that we effectively accuse God of favoritism. Why would they have been held in some special place, separate from all who went before and all who came after? Why would they receive a message that no others were given? If God is no respecter of persons, then this interpretation cannot stand!
If, however, we accept that the preaching happened while these folks were yet alive, then Peter has merely presented one example of what has transpired through every age of man. As Matthew Henry points out for us, through all ages, the offer of Christ’s help has been known, the warnings issued, and the Spirit sent. The disobedient in Noah’s day were not given some special opportunity that others have not. To bring it into more current concerns, there exists no tribe on the earth who has not had this same offer. There exists no tribe which has not heard the same warnings. There are not, nor ever have been, any such people as have not had opportunity to know Christ. The popular example of that pitiful native in the jungle depths who went to the grave unaware of God and salvation is, at some level, our own misunderstanding and nothing more.
We do indeed have the general rule for God’s economy of salvation that we who believe are sent to proclaim the Gospel to those who haven’t heard. But, do not let it be supposed that God is incapable of getting the message out without us! Do not let it be supposed that if we fail of our task, that poor heathen tribesman has been condemned to hell by our inaction. No! This is no more the case than that the babe who has died in the womb or prior to the age of reason (if there be such a thing) has died with no hope of hearing the Gospel and therefore condemned to hell with no chance.
Look: If the Spirit of Christ could preach through Noah, He can just as easily preach through any other means of His choosing. He can speak directly, should He get the urge. God is not in need of intermediaries, and He does not lack for servants. Angels can be sent, if that suits the purpose. Dreams and visions can be granted. In short, nothing in all of creation can stop the Gospel message from being proclaimed. Indeed, were this not the case, one might finally have to cede the case that there’s an argument for God being unjust. But, as that cannot be the case, we must accept the alternative, that no man ever went to the grave without having enough opportunity of knowing God as to accept salvation through faith in Christ. No man ever died innocent or ignorant in that regard.
Let it also be settled that nothing in what Peter is saying requires, or even permits us to understand that those who have died have another chance. This is not some final opportunity to repent given to those long in the grave. Praying for the dead cannot hope to alter their situation. The die is cast. Repentance is for the living.
Now: While Calvin went astray in interpreting this passage, he does present us with an entirely valid point, if we take it as a matter pointed to by the larger section we are considering. He concludes that this passage indicates that no harm was done the believing fathers for their being amongst the unbelieving. To be clear, he asserts this based on his theory that Jesus preached to this group somehow in Hades or some such place, mystically maintaining them separate from all others there so that only they heard, and that they heard efficaciously. I.e. it was a salvific message that was delivered, and it was the long awaited salvation received. But, we’ve been over that. That interpretation simply doesn’t stand up.
But, turn to the imagery of the Flood. Eight souls out of all living are saved. There is a picture of the believing amongst the unbelieving. The same Flood which destroyed the unbelieving was an instrument of salvation to those eight. This image of the very few preserved from out of the many is a constant motif of Scripture. The whole book of Genesis would seem to present us with a thinning process. From all of humanity, these few are chosen; eight in Noah’s family, twelve in Jacob’s. One son is chosen, the other rejected. From all the peoples of the world, only tiny Israel is chosen, and even within Israel, so very few are kept. Over and over it happens. The majority go chasing after spiritual harlotries, and only a very few hold to faith.
Have no doubt that it is the same today. Considering the state of Christianity as a whole, it is easy enough for us to see that the majority of churches today are churches of unbelief. But, don’t stop there. We must recognize that the very same truth doubtless holds true in our own local congregation. We don’t like that thought because this is family we’re talking about now. We know these folks. We worship with them. We have seen their ways, that they are upright. But, have we? Are we, the first amongst all God’s people throughout history, empowered to read the heart accurately? Of course not.
Jesus is abundantly clear on this. Parable after parable informs us that the same situation that persisted in Israel will persist in the Church. There will be wheat and tares together right to the end. They look so much alike as to be impossible to tell apart until they are fully ripened. Even then, it requires careful examination to prevent those tares from being accepted as part of the harvest. We do our best to ascertain the true believers from the poseurs, but we are insufficient to the task. We are better advised to exert our energies in helping those poseurs (though we know not who among us is in that camp) to become true believers. It behooves us to do what we may to impart the Truth, inculcate the ways of righteousness, and to pray for one and all that they may be found in Him.
I go back to that favorite footnote of mine. Understanding that there is a believing few even amongst the many in our pews, we are called to work as though we never pray – as if it all depends on us. So, we teach, we exhort, we exemplify. But, simultaneously, we pray as if we were utterly incapable of doing any work, for salvation and sanctification cannot transpire except the Lord decides to build His house. If He does not call, they have no hope of answering. If He does not beckon, there can be no welcome. And, where He has hardened the heart of another Pharaoh, the best efforts of all God’s people will not avail to soften.
We’re preaching to prisoners, and it must be accepted that more often than not, we are preaching to no avail, at least so far as concerns their final estate. All appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, it is the remnant, the true church whose membership is known finally only to God, who are the saved. Let us, by the Spirit’s testimony within us, make certain of our own place amongst that number and let us, by His power and influence, do our utmost to aid those others He has called in finding Him. Let us labor while it is yet day, for the darkness thickens daily.
A Side Note on Translation (12/28/14)
This morning, my reading cycle brought me to the God’s Word translation. Said translation has done something most improper. They have so committed to their sense of what this passage was intended to mean that they have altered the word of Scripture entirely to suit their purpose. In verse 19, they add words to arrive at Christ having gone ‘to proclaim his victory’. I cannot find any sense of the term being translated that might be taken as requiring such a translation. Then, in verse 20, the translation offers this introduction: “They are like those who disobeyed long ago”. Once again, nothing in the text gives the least occasion for supposing a metaphorical intent. There is no like. They were disobedient. Only one word is involved in this translation. As to syntax, it is an Aorist, taking in the whole of the matter in summary form. It is active. They did it. It’s not like they did it. They did it.
I’ll not spend much more time on the point. Suffice it so say that this demonstrates the great risk in utilizing paraphrastic renderings of Scripture. The further one moves from a literal translation, however stilted the result, the closer one comes to the translator’s personal sense of the text. The Amplified might be thought to fall into this category as well, but they are at least careful to clearly demark where they are amplifying or offering sundry possible synonyms or alternate meanings for the term under consideration. Most other texts, where they feel the need to interpolate a word here and there, will likewise format that word to make it clear: This is not in the original. Here, no such indication is given, and the situation is effectively, “Reader, beware.”
To finish the thought, I have to take notice for my own practice. After all, I almost invariably put passages in my own words as I quote them here. Indeed, it is a standard part of my methodology to attempt a paraphrase of the passage I am studying. It used to be that this was the first step I took with a passage, but I found that too often this led to results that I deemed to be in error shortly thereafter. Now, I hold such efforts until having at least considered the Greek behind the text as best I may, along with other basics of interpretation. And still, I must recognize the need for care, lest I fall into this same grievous trap of reading my opinions as holy writ.
If I find paraphrasing such a high-risk activity, it might well be asked why I persist in using it. I will offer to reasons. The first is a pragmatic matter. The majority of translations today are under copyright and one runs the risk of lawsuit for quoting too much from them. The alternative is to quote the King James, but as I almost never use that translation, it would be rather odd to quote it constantly. (In case you’ve ever wondered why so much of Christian literature relies on the King James, I think this is largely your answer. It’s free of copyright issues.) The second reason is actually my primary reason, particularly when it comes to the passage under study. This is a means for me to clarify the intent of the passage in my own thinking. That is to say, it gets me out of the ‘rote recitation’ mode and into the, ‘what is it saying’ mode. I recognize – I must recognize – that this has the aforementioned inherent risks. But, it also has the benefit of getting at the meaning in terms that are meaningful to me.
Let me just note that there exists Scriptural support for this paraphrastic approach. If one looks at the way Jesus or the Apostles utilize the Old Testament Scriptures, it will be noticed that they are not necessarily sticklers for rendering passages word for word. Even where it can be seen that they perhaps follow the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, there are still variances. Why? Primarily, I would say, it is because those passages have been brought to mind in connection with a specific line of thinking. They are not primarily looking to deliver a sermon on the meaning of that passage. They are turning to that passage in support of what they are delivering. They are after the meaning of the text, not some effort at proving their powers of memorization. To be sure, there is benefit in memorizing Scripture, but if I had to opt for memorizing the words of a particular translation or memorizing the intended meaning, I would have to opt for the latter.
If anybody should care (and I don’t know why you should), I generally work from the NASB when I am studying, and the ESV when following the sermon. The former comes about rather by accident, in that the first study Bible I procured happened to be NASB. But, I have a deep appreciation for that translation’s tendency to stay true to the underlying words. It doesn’t always get it right, in my opinion, and you will find cases (even in this passage) where I may disagree with their choice of rendering one term or another. But, it’s honest. The meaning given is at least admitted to by the word translated. As to the ESV, this happens to be the version primarily used in the pulpit, and is also the one, non-KJV version that comes free of charge on my tablet. As translations go, it’s acceptable to me. It flows off the tongue a bit better than NASB, I suppose, but I would still be happy to go back to the NASB if that were on the tablet. I will also note, not as bragging but as disclosure, that there are some 30 odd translations that I will run through in the course of studying. When first approaching a passage, I generally read through them all in succession. For the remainder of the study time, I tend to read one translation each day. Today happened to be the day for God’s Word. Needless to say, this leads to a ‘weighted’ reading of various translations. Those further down the list get read less frequently, as most of my studies do not persist for thirty days – maybe half that.
And now, back to our study.
Sacrament of Baptism (12/28/14-12/29/14)
As a point of transition from my brief excursus back to the matter of this passage, the first item I had under this head serves admirably. “God Himself must be in it, or all the works of man are futile.” This comment is offered primarily on the topic of baptism, but to be fair, it suits quite nicely for the matter of studying Scripture as well. If God is not in it, then study is nothing beyond a work of man. It is futile and of no value to the soul so ever. The same can be said of all our efforts in the context of church or of religious exercises. Those given to pursuit of what are referred to as spiritual disciplines are in the exact same place. Indeed, Scripture itself comments to that effect. A habit of prayer is a marvelous thing. But, if it is only a habit, it has no value beyond perhaps building vocabulary. If God is not in it, prayer is just vanity and wind. A dedication to periodic fasting, if God is not in it, is just a rather poor approach to dieting. It has no spiritual value in and of itself. Church attendance, for all that, may give one the appearance of a fine, upstanding citizen. But, it proves nothing. If God is not in it, church attendance may in fact be a particularly deadly mistake.
What do I mean by that? The one who mistakenly supposes that his regular presence in the pew renders him acceptable before God will do nothing further towards his sanctification. He will exit the building no different than he entered. He will, at best, find some new work or exercise to which he is being encouraged, and start doing this or that in the thought that these exercises added to his regular attendance will do the trick. But, that way lies a false hope. Our hope is wholly, solely, and entirely in Christ, else our hope is as vain as the atheist’s.
Considering baptism, Calvin offers a similar thought: No sacrament may be properly considered without combining the sign and the thing to which the sign points. Again, this is noted specifically in regard to baptism, and one may reasonably conclude, communion as well; these being the two sacraments of the church. But, we could as well consider most every activity we undertake from the perspective of Christianity as being of a sacramental nature. When we pray, it is not a sacrament of the Church, but it is sacramental – or should be. When we teach, the same applies. When we fast? Yes. When we join in fellowship? Absolutely! When we engage in conversation, this, too, should have a flavor of being sacramental. If God is in it, it does.
Of course, we cannot help but recognize that entirely too often, God is not in it. We are terrifyingly inclined towards going through the motions. We know what we’re supposed to do so we do it, but God’s not in it, and in fairness, neither are we. The good news is that we are made aware of it. That good conscience which God has granted us by His Spirit reminds us: Brother! This is not right. Repent and return. Repent and return. And, so we do. And tomorrow we may very well find ourselves making the same sinful mistake all over again, and we will again heed the call: Repent and return. Praise God that He has given us this assurance: Where we repent, He is faithful (and Just) to forgive us!
That aside, Peter is particularly concerning himself with baptism in this passage, so let us consider that in brief – having considered it at extensive length previously. He is painting a picture of correspondence here. Those prisoners from verse 19 were not presented metaphorically, but they are set before us as having a certain correspondence to baptism.
Stop. The primary point of correspondence, as several commentaries take pains to note, is the water. Water is the type / antitype substance of the comparison. But, the remaining details may, I think, be taken into account as well. In Noah’s day, we are reminded, there was a world of disobedience out there, and only eight beings out of all humanity who were granted rescue. The same water that lifted their boat to carry them sank all others under the waves. So much, I dare say, for the old adage that a rising tide lifts all boats. Be that as it may, not all those boats carry their cargo safely through!
This, Peter tells us, has a certain correspondence to baptism. We need not find congruence on every point, but there is a correspondence. The JFB finds our thread in this: For Noah, the Flood was a means of transfer from the old life (amongst a vile generation) to a new life where sin had been removed – at least for a season. The same theme is found in the Exodus, where the Red Sea proved a means of transfer from the old life as slaves in Egypt to the new life as conquerors in Canaan. Then, we have baptism: The transfer from the old life of sin to the new life of the redeemed. Thematically, the connection is clear between these three images.
I would have to note this about these three pictures, as well. All of them are, if you will, Middle Voice events. It would be tempting to look at them as Passive Voice: God doing all the work and His people just laying back and receiving the benefit, but it’s not that way. Noah had to actively participate by building the ark, else he would have drown with the rest. Israel had to walk through the Red Sea, else they would have been destroyed by Pharaoh’s army. The baptismal candidate has the active work of putting away sin. It cannot be done without God, to be sure! But, it will not be done without you. Putting away sin is something in which we must actively participate even as we depend utterly on God to make our efforts fruitful. Like everything else, as I have been saying, if God is not in it, it’s not of any value. But, God is in it!
“God is pleased to convey His blessings to us in and by His ordinances.” Those words are from Matthew Henry, and they give us a fine depiction of the power of the two sacraments of the Church rightly applied. But, rightly applied is a key issue. Adam Clarke reminds us on this point. “We are therefore strongly cautioned here, not to rest in the letter, but to look for the substance.” The fact that one has been baptized (particularly if one was baptized in infancy) does not somehow confer upon him the state of being saved. This false hope is one great reason for avoiding that practice. How many do we meet who believe themselves saved because mom and dad had them baptized when they were first born? How many of this same number demonstrate day after day that no such status applies?
But, it must also be said that many who have been baptized in truth may yet demonstrate by their behaviors that much remains to be done. It is a strange thing, this work of salvation. God, for reasons known only to Him, chooses not to bring about the entire impact of sanctification at the moment of salvation, but rather leaves us to make gradual, and often halting progress over the course of life. This progress happens at different rates with different people. There may be lengthy periods where any onlooker would question the validity of their claims to salvation. There may well be egregious lapses, events which truly tarnish the name of Christ. And yet, in time it is discovered that they were indeed on the narrow way. Their Savior truly did reel them back in and set them back on course. For the unbeliever, all of this is accounted grounds for charges of hypocrisy. In some cases, they may well be right. But, it aint’ necessarily so.
In his sermon yesterday, Jonathan brought up the imagery of the refining process used to purify gold. Indeed, it was brought up in the context of the opening passages of this epistle. We are being purified. That’s what the work of sanctification is about. But, there’s something about the process which passed without comment, and it’s a matter which, to me, explains quite well what I have been describing. You see, as part of that purification process, the ore is heated to melting point. What happens is well known. All the impurities rise to the top of this liquid metal pool where they can be skimmed off. It is called dross. That term is used several times in Scripture to describe the effect of sin on the believer. Consider, for example, “I will also turn My hand against you, and will smelt away your dross as with lye, and will remove all your alloy” (Isa 1:25). There is anger in God’s tone, certainly, but the end result? This is for your good! If the dross is not removed, the gold cannot shine forth.
But, here’s the thing: While the process is ongoing, the dross is far more evident to the eye than the pure gold beneath. Jonathan made the point that a goldsmith knows the purifying work is done when he can see his face reflected in the molten metal. This, too, illustrates the point beautifully. The goal of our sanctification is that our lives would perfectly reflect our Savior. But, while that process is ongoing, it may well be that His image is harder to see than ever, as the dross rises. See, if the pressures of discipline and of persecution are akin to the refining fires, they are going to cause our sinful ways to surface. This is all to plan, for the sinful habit cannot be removed which remains hidden away. As often as not, it remains so hidden that we cannot see it in ourselves. Or, it may be that we are painfully aware of our personal sin and so strive to keep it hidden from our fellows. But, God will not suffer it to remain so. It must be exposed so that it can be removed.
Again, consider that unbelieving onlooker. He is more likely to see you at your sinful worst than is your fellow Christian. Around church members you are likely to be on your best behavior. But, get out amidst the world and you can let your guard down. They won’t care, right? But, they do, and this is both our mistake and our opportunity. It is our mistake in that we are sent to be ambassadors of Christ and instead we decide to act the pagan, to fit in. If we will own up to our mistake, though, it can be made opportunity. Yes, I failed. No, this does not invalidate my faith. Come, let me show you this God who has allowed this dross to rise so He can scrape it off. But, of course, this requires that we submit to the process, that we repent and return. Always this remains.
What has all this to do with baptism? Baptism is a symbol. It is not, as Peter takes pains to point out, the matter of bathing. It’s not about washing the dirt of the road off of our flesh. It’s not just a more thoroughgoing ablution built on Jewish principles of hand-washing and such. It’s not really about bodily cleansing at all. It’s about a spiritual cleansing. It’s about the renewing work of the Spirit by which work we are putting away sin and becoming dedicated to God. It is in this sense both a commemoration of what has already transpired (thus, the call to reserve it as a believer’s baptism), and a vow as concerns the future. It is a vow on both our part and God’s, as has been every covenant made between God and man. Indeed, as with every covenant thus made, it has come about at God’s instigation and not our own. And, like every covenant thus made, we will find ourselves unable to uphold our end of the deal, earnest though we be. God, on the other hand, is faithful. “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this” (Isa 9:7).
That passage, proclaimed at the announcement of Messiah’s eternal governance, came up in the Christmas Eve message, as is rather traditional. But, while that statement is made in regard to His government of peace, it applies to every covenant God has made. It is there in the covenant with Abraham. Abraham, you are incapable of this. You know it. That is why you have been reduced to fear and trembling at the thought of entering covenant with Me. But, the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this, not you. It is there in the pronouncement of the Gospel to Adam. “I will put enmity between you. He will bruise your evil head.” My zeal will accomplish this. That’s the whole news of Creation, start to finish. If you’re looking for the scarlet thread of redemption, it is there. The certainty of God’s election is boldly proclaimed in those words. You, sinner, can’t do it, even in rebirth. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.
Salvation? If you could save yourself, there would be no Savior. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this! Sanctification? Keep working on it, but know beyond all doubt that it is beyond you to accomplish. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this! See if you can keep your feet clean and leave the rest to Him. Total dedication to God? I know you want this to be your story. I know you’re trying your best. But, I also know it’s beyond you. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this! If you would hear it in New Testament terms, try this. He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Php 1:6). But, notice: It’s ongoing. It’s a process. We call it sanctification, and we work at it with fear and trembling, but we do so knowing it is God working in us, else the work isn’t happening at all. There, too, is the renewing work of the Spirit, bringing us to a place of total dedication to God. But, while the work is ongoing, what have we to show? Dross, mostly. That’s why the work is ongoing. There are impurities yet to be boiled out of us, and the zeal of the Lord of hosts will assuredly accomplish this.
Think of those stores and websites with their signs out. “Pardon our appearance during reconstruction.” That is, by and large, the steady state of the Christian. I have little cause to doubt that Paul, for all that he said, “be imitators of me” (1Co 4:16), was not thereby suggesting that he had finished the process of sanctification. No, he remained under construction, and I feel certain he made this clear, if not by word then by example.
None of this, however, reduces the significance and the power of baptism. Rightly applied, it is powerful indeed, being a means of grace. It is not grace in itself, but it is a means. Preaching is in that same category, isn’t it? It is a most valuable, commanded means of grace. Faith comes by hearing. But hearing alone does not impart faith. The zeal of the Lord of hosts accomplishes it, else it is not accomplished.
There remains the question as to what Peter is saying about the real value of baptism. He’s clear about what it is not. It is not a bath. It is not a laving of any physical sort. That is but the image, the symbol. The reality is ‘an appeal to God for a good conscience’ according to the NASB. The NET takes it to be ‘the pledge of a good conscience to God’. Clearly, there is some question as to the exact meaning of the term here. Pledge, response, answer: What is it?
The Wycliffe Commentary makes a good point in this regard: A good conscience is a thing sought from God, not a thing given in answer to Him. One thinks of the long-standing question: When you find yourself before God and He is asking on what basis you think you should be granted entrance to heaven, what answer will you give? If you think you are going to answer, “My conscience is clear,” then you are delusional. My only plea is Christ. He, the Lord of hosts, has done it! He paid my debt. He is here before You, representing me. I lay myself upon the mercy of the court based solely upon what He has done for me.
Now, Barnes provides a more prosaic explanation of Peter’s thinking, and this points us back to the practice of baptism. In earliest practice, the baptizer would query the candidate for baptism, seeking by examination to determine as best one may that this candidate had indeed come to faith in Christ, understood the holiness of God, and that He alone was God, and was indeed prepared to dedicate himself wholly to this God Who Is. It is more along the lines of, “Can you, in good conscience, declare that you have been saved by grace, having set your faith fully and solely in Jesus Christ who died and was resurrected and has ascended to God’s right hand?” Of course, we remain human judges and cannot read the heart with accuracy. We can’t even read our own with any great assurance. But, to the degree we can ascertain the truth of that answer, we seek to assure that those who undertake the symbolic act of baptism do so with earnestness; do so in such a way as to truly benefit from the grace of God therein. It is that earnest heart, cognizant of what God has done, having heard the call of the elect, responding in faith to the Holy Spirit’s salvific work, which matters. The act itself is but an act of obedience, a token demonstration of that dedication being professed.
Undertaken aright, this is indeed a most holy sacrament, as is communion. Taken awry, one must wonder if baptism is not as deadly to the soul as is communion. We are forever reminded, prior to taking communion, that it must needs be taken with hearts right before God, having confessed our sins, repented of them, and mended any rifts we may have caused in the fellowship of the saints. Many, we are warned by Scripture, weakened and even died for having wrongly partaken of this holy meal. To take communion in such fashion as despises Christ is a most terrible wrong. Can it be supposed that undergoing baptism from false motives is any less heinous a crime? How vile to pretend to an association with the humiliation of Christ when in fact one chooses to humiliate Him! How vile to seek the benefit of the Ascended Christ without the association with His humility. Baptism proclaims an association with all of Him. Where this is not the intent of the heart, surely the act is a stick in the eye of our Lord.
This is not to say we shall not fail of our vow. We shall. But, where faith is real, where the intent of the heart is to honor Christ as He Is, and to follow Him wherever He leads, He shall be faithful to complete His work. That is the promise of baptism which, in the end, is far more powerful and significant than our faltering vow. Only let the candidate be of earnest faith, and the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do it! Indeed, I would argue that if that candidate’s faith is earnest, then the zeal of the Lord of hosts has already done it. This alone is grounds for a valid baptism. This alone can provide the testimony of a good conscience, for where there is a good conscience and true, it is from God. For, He alone is good.
Context Counts (12/30/14)
The subject of baptism, which Peter brings up almost as a passing note, is a much bigger deal than this brief notice might suggest. It is a difficult topic for us from our distant remove, for so many differences of interpretation and understanding have arisen over the years. Some decry this as needless hair-splitting, but the fact of the matter is that baptism is one of the primary sacraments of the Church, and it is also quite clearly a commandment received from our Lord and Savior. As such, it behooves us to do our utmost to make certain we are obeying that command not only in name, but in form.
If one has any remaining doubt as to the importance of baptism, I should think the comparison drawn to Noah and his ark in the waters of the Flood should suffice to answer them. Notice the point Peter makes in regard to that ancient event. Of all who were alive at the time, only eight were saved. They were brought safely through the waters, not saved by the waters. Now, consider the context of Peter’s message. You up there in Asia Minor: You are a distinct minority. In your own local culture, you are a distinct minority, and those who cling to the old gods of the region find you a stench and an offense. At best, they ridicule you. More likely, they persecute you outright, even if it has not yet come to the point of putting you to death. In the larger culture of the Roman Empire, your situation only gets worse. You are adherents to the least sect of a despised religion as the ruling culture sees it. The Jews were aggravating enough, and now, you come with this Christianity that both stirs them up to rioting and leads otherwise manageable pagans to despise the cult of the emperor. This just won’t do. And for what? For a criminal, a weak rebel leader we had crucified. Why will you worship a dead revolutionary? He’s not going to save you now!
But, Christian take heart! Remember the days of Noah. His situation was certainly no better. In all the world he had only his sons, his immediate family, with which to hold common the true faith. His parents were gone. His grandchildren, if he had any, had gone astray. And now, God had called him to this enormous undertaking which, atop being extremely difficult also set him and his family out as laughingstocks. Every day, the ridicule. Every day, the belittling comments. It could hardly surprise were we to discover that the neighbors on occasion did harm to the work, or to the materials gathered for the work. Scripture doesn’t mention this, of course. It is purest speculation on my part. But, the larger point is clear: Noah dealt with a lot of persecution as he worked. One hundred twenty years spent on this; preaching to those who laughed, explaining to the unhearing masses what was coming – knowing it was coming. Can you imagine the weight on this man, knowing that everybody he spoke to was going to be dead and gone in short order? Can you imagine the wrenching of his heart when he heard the screams of the drowning as he and his sons floated in safety?
But, again: Take heart! Eight souls out of all mankind truly is but a mote. And yet, this mote, this least of seeds planted by the Lord, has grown to establish all that you see alive today. Were it not for Noah, there could be no Jewish nation, no Roman Empire, no Asia Minor. You, faithful readers, are few, it is true. You are persecuted, it is true. But, like Noah before you, you are being saved. Through you, life – real life – is preserved. Persecution is but a season, and eternity awaits.
It is into this message that Peter injects baptism. Baptism saves you. Such a shocking statement. It is the antitype of the Flood waters. From that, it would seem we must understand that as much as baptism serves to carry us to salvation, it also serves to condemn the rest. Here, I find it reasonable to bring a further type/antitype relationship to bear. I would hold that ark and church are in this same relationship one to another. The ark was that which bore Noah and his family through the waters. The Church is that which bears us through the tides of the present age. In both cases, it is only those called by God who enter. In both cases, it is God who shuts the door when it is time. In both cases, it is only those who are within who shall live, and in both cases, that which serves to save also condemns all who are not aboard. It is a sobering thought, but as we preach the Gospel, it is not solely to the salvation of those who hear to good effect, it is also condemnatory to those who hear to no effect. The last, false hope of excuse is removed. There can be no doubt now but that they have heard the Gospel. There will be no appeal to ignorance.
It would seem more natural to speak of that ark as the thing which saved. But, Peter chooses water. I think this comes about in part because the waters of the Flood permeate everywhere and overwhelm. In baptism, at least as we understand the practice, the waters overwhelm the candidate. Death is come upon him as it came upon Christ. But, like Christ, we rise from those waters. The ark upholds us and we come through to life. We will win through! It is not because of the water, nor is it because of the ark. In the final analysis, in the most theologically careful terms, the act of baptism most assuredly does not save us, any more than the act of circumcision ever saved a Jew. Likewise, the Church does not save us. Regular attendance and membership have no salvific value, any more than the Temple was sufficient to preserve Jerusalem. It is not the symbol that saves. It is the symbolized. It is God. Faith and faith alone shall serve, and even that is not of our own effort, but comes a gift from God, lest any man should suppose he has cause to boast.
Baptism is but an evidence presented, evidence of faith established beforehand. So, too, the ark. If Noah had not already possessed an enduring faith in God, the ark would never have been built by him. The ark was a sign of the faith he held. It was a sign pointing to the God Who Is. Baptism is a sign pointing to the God Who Is. The Church is a sign pointing to the God Who Is. That is (or was) the whole point of the steeple. All of this is but the evidence of what has already been acknowledged and recorded in the highest court of Creation. Sanctification continues, to be sure. But, the work is done even as it continues. Foot washing, as I said earlier, remains a task to be attended to, but you are already clean. The waters of baptism did not do that. They confirmed that. They proclaimed the fact that this cleansing had come.
In light of that, we cannot accept that baptism asks God for a good conscience. It proclaims that good conscience. It is a mark of obedience by one who has said, Yes, Lord, I am Yours to command as You see fit. I am devoted to You, a bond-servant in Your household. I willingly, gladly, associate myself with You in Your most humiliating moment, knowing that You are in truth most highly exalted. I thank You that You have seen fit to accept me as one of the faithful few, and hereby covenant with You to do my utmost to walk worthy of Your acceptance. I do so knowing that like Abraham before me, I cannot pretend to be able to hold true to this covenant. But, You are able, and I set myself entirely in Your hands. I know You have declared me righteous, not on account of deeds I have done, but because of what You have done. I know my case is closed. I know that no man can make successful appeal to change that ruling – no, nor demon! Nothing can separate me from Your love. It is finished!
Sanctification shall proceed, and though I know I shall fall miserably short more often than not, yet I can have confidence in this: You are faithful to complete it. These temporal troubles have no power to alter my eternal state, for You are with me. Sorrows remain sorrowful, and I find it as yet impossible to contemplate the grave with anything like anticipation – indeed find it distasteful in those who do. But, I know this: When my days are done and You call me home, it is indeed home I shall go. When my work here is done, so, too, is Your work in me. Oh! That day when I can come before You and see You as You truly are! I tremble to contemplate it, for I see the work that remains – or at least that work does remain. Yet, I also long for that moment, knowing that it signals the point when no work remains and I am finally fully remade in Your image. You reign! There is Peter’s closing thought for this part. You reign over all things, and You have called me. Let me re-emphasize that for my own comfort. You have called me. You have called me Your own, and as Mr. Clarke declared it, You alone can save. You alone can destroy. My case is closed, and I give You all thanks that it is so.
As I continue in this life, I pray Thee, hold me faithful to You. Let my service be such as pleases You. Let my care for those You entrust to me be the care of a coworker and not, as we were reminded last night, the poor, self-serving care of a hired hand. Because You are faithful, I know I have hope of being faithful to the labors You assign. I may not feel it, but I can know it. Let me not become lazy or presumptuous in this knowledge, but only take comfort and confidence in knowing You walk with me every step. Keep my ears open to Your word, Lord, and my feet ready to go as You command.
