New Thoughts (01/15/15-01/23/15)
Preaching to the dead? (01/16/15-01/17/15)
I will add only a few introductory notes this morning. It is interesting to note where the several commentaries disagree and where they concur as we work through a difficult passage. Peter’s intended meaning in verse 6, for example, is subjected to a wide range of interpretation, and the proper object of his doxology in verse 11 is debated as to whether he addresses it Father or Son. But, come to the middle, and the Church has one voice, and that is well.
Seeing the challenge of understanding Peter’s intentions with this discussion of preaching to the dead (not to mention the thought of baptism saving back in chapter 3) gives that much greater weight to his admonition in verse 11: Speak as one speaking God’s oracles. Be serious. Be careful. Beware of interjecting mere opinion. Even in these times of study – perhaps especially in these times of study – the warning stands. Take care what you are speaking to yourself about the meaning of God’s word, for a false idea, once firmly lodged in the brain, is particularly difficult to dislodge. By the power of God, it can be done, but it is with difficulty.
In the first 2 verses of this passage, we are faced with two issues of interpretation. First: Who are the dead to whom Peter preached? Second: Just how is the end at hand if all has continued since? Neither of these are unresolvable matters, but they are challenging. As to the matter of the dead, a survey of the commentaries demonstrates just how widely varied the interpretations can be, and just how difficult it can be for men of good faith to arrive at a single answer.
Let me clarify one point before moving on. I consider all the authors I read for these studies to be men of good faith. I am not reading their commentaries because I wish to know what the enemy’s playbook holds. I read them because, though we may differ on any number of points of theology, they remain men of God with godly insight to offer. None of them are perfect, any more than I am. All of them are capable of presenting a point of truth in a fashion that absolutely captivates. In fairness, some are more likely than others to speak to me, but then, even my heroes make mistakes, just like the heroes we find in Scripture.
Coming to this matter of the dead, many of the commentaries spend a few moments discounting this theory and that. Most prominent is the theory that leads to the idea of Purgatory or Limbo or some such intermediate space where the dead have not yet been sorted out. It is stated more than once that the doctrine of Purgatory is built almost exclusively upon the passage beginning with 1Peter 3:18 and proceeding to this point. There’s a reason for this span. For one thing, Peter’s thoughts are connected. For another, in both places we are hearing about the Gospel being preached to the dead. Given the proximity of remark and the continuity of thought, how we understand Peter in the one case must direct our understanding of the other case.
If one supposes that Peter was telling us that Jesus went subterranean, looked up that specific group of folk who died in the Flood, and preached to them (presumably with an eye to repentance), then you can suppose that same group to be in view here. Clarke notes this as a possibility. If you assume the former passage to have made more of an allegorical use of death and life, then this will also flavor your understanding here. Thus, Matthew Henry offers the thought that this is a before and after picture of the redeemed. You were dead (in your sins) before hearing the Gospel. Now you are alive. This runs into an immediate problem, though, in that the dead part is equated to be judged as men.
Now, we could write that off as simply stating that their bodies are judged but their spirit lives on, and that would be an accurate statement of the situation. Indeed, that is clearly part of the contrast Peter is presenting. But, there’s the other half: As men, on the one hand; according to God on the other. This contrast must also be resolved, and here, the before/after theory does, I think, have a problem. The contrast here would require that both clauses be understood in similar fashion. We can’t take one half as indicating a simple parallel to flesh except we take the other half as indicating an equally simple parallel to spirt. But, that leaves us with dead=flesh=man, live=spirit=God. For that to hold true, the second half must speak of the life that is in God, and then the whole message becomes meaningless. I may have overcomplicated this, but I think the point is made.
The Wycliffe Commentary brings out some of John Owen’s description of the passage, which seems to arrive much nearer to a proper understanding of the matter, and one with which both Barnes and the JFB authors concur. It runs thus: He preached to those who are now dead martyrs, but did so before they died. This, I would note, concurs with the understanding of that preaching mentioned in conjunction with Noah, so that requirement is met. Noah preached to those alive in his day, and what he preached was the Gospel. To Peter’s point, Jesus preached through Noah (for He was and is and ever shall be.) Their state of death pertains to the present, and is quite literally the case. Death is not figurative. It is a statement of simple fact. They are not even really in the grave anymore, so long have they decayed.
This verse speaks more to current events for those receiving the letter. Being a Christian was risky business in that time and place, as well as being something of an upstart religion from the perspective of the culture. People were being persecuted for abandoning the old gods for this Jesus fellow. Persecution was, in some cases, leading to death. Men judged these Christians and accounted them guilty of crimes against humanity. Those receiving this letter knew of fellow believers who had met this end. You can imagine this might have an impact on one’s commitment! That’s been the underlying point behind this letter all along. You are suffering. We are suffering. We understand that. But, this suffering is no evidence that your faith is in a false God. No, no. He is most certainly on the throne. Men may judge you evil. Men may even put you to death. But, that’s beside the point, painful as it is to contemplate. Why? Because even if they put you in the grave, you live. God’s judgment is different, and He outranks them! He says you live. Therefore, you live.
Before I go on, there’s a comment from Calvin that I must confess threw me when I read it. “We then set for [the gospel] limits much too narrow if we confine it to this present life.” Given the topic, and the controversy, my first sense of his meaning was that he was signing on for Jesus having gone below decks to preach to those in Hades or some such. It’s possible that He did just that, but it is highly improbable that He did so with an eye to repentance. The dead have, as one of these authors notes further in, passed out of their probationary period. Earthly death seals the record and no further testimony is being accepted.
I do not, however, find Calvin promoting any such view, and in fact, he would seem to rather vehemently reject it. Therefore, I must be misunderstanding his point to read it thus. So, let’s try again. If we confine the gospel to this present life: What is that intended to mean? As I say, it cannot mean that the gospel is somehow preachable to those in the grave, at least to any good effect, and Calvin seems clearly to have the beneficial effect of the Gospel in mind. What’s the alternative for grasping his meaning, then? I think it is exactly that: The beneficial effect of the Gospel. This effect is not a matter constrained to this life. The grave does not terminate your benefits. Arguably, it introduces you into their fullest realization.
There is most assuredly a tendency in us to respond in terms that set such boundaries on the Gospel. We speak of an eternity ahead, and I dare say we even believe it. But, we act as if no such state applied. We live as those who view the grave as the end rather than the beginning. This is reflected in the efforts of man to extend his lifespan and forestall death as long as possible. If to die is gain, why all the fuss? Now, you can tell me that this is a problem for the atheist and agnostic, but not for the Christian. But, I have only to point out how many Christian ministries (and I’ll assume their legitimate claim to Christianity for this argument) are focused on matters of physical healing. Yes, that’s primarily a Charismatic thing, but not exclusively. Let a brother fall sick in even the most conservative of evangelical congregations and what is the response? Pray that he be healed! There comes a point, I should think, where such prayers are potentially cruel and quite probably running counter to the will of God. If it were not counter to His will, we should not see believers dying. But, they do. It’s plain simple fact. The particulars of your theology do not and cannot alter it.
Believers suffer. Believers fall prey to chronic illness, and it’s not due to some lack of faith. Believers succumb to their illnesses, and it’s not because the church is dead. Honestly, all that sort of thinking elevates man to an entirely inappropriate degree. If God willed for this one to be healed, he would be healed. If God willed for him to die, all your prayers and efforts to the contrary would have absolutely no chance of changing the matter. I’m sorry, but God is not required to go against His own purpose because you prayed. Suffering is part of the plan, as much as we may not like that idea. The idea that the life of faith is supposed to be free of pain, illness, frustration and the like is quite frankly false and absolutely denied by Scripture.
Peter doesn’t skate around this point. He’s been hitting it head on since the beginning of the letter. Yes, these things are happening. It would be rather pointless to deny that, wouldn’t it? It would be equally pointless to admonish them to run about claiming it was otherwise, as if that would somehow magically alter the situation. What’s called for is not escape and not escapism. What’s called for is perseverance. That’s the constant drumbeat of this letter. Yes, you are persecuted. Yes, your churchmates have been persecuted. Yes, some of them have been put to death. That’s going to shake your faith. I get that. We’re seeing the same thing here. But, understand: They may have been put to death by man, but they are quite alive. God’s got them in hand, and those who have judged them so harshly? Those who are giving you such grief? They, too, will come to the grave soon enough, and their death will no more prevent their judgment than it prevents your brothers’ life before God.
That’s the note of encouragement that Peter is driving towards in these verses. It is consistent with everything else he’s had to say. You are dealing with a boss who berates your faith? Persevere. Turn in a good day’s work. Your spouse doesn’t believe, and laughs at you, derides you? Persevere. Perhaps your example will suffice to win them over. You are being dragged off to prison for your faith? Persevere. Give the good testimony. You saw your friend beheaded for his faith? Persevere. He is not dead. He is with God. His death will be avenged, have no fear. There’s the message. It is consistent. It is constant. It is needed today as much as ever.
Where people suffer persecution, whether at the hands of man or under the ravages of disease, it is natural to expect that some will have died. The flesh may suffer for the gospel. Indeed, if we listen to Jesus we can state that more strongly. The flesh will suffer for the gospel. It may come to bodily harm. It may come to bodily death. But, the soul will live! That, as Barnes says, should encourage us to be willing to suffer in the flesh for God. This is not to say that we ought to seek out the opportunity to be martyred, or that we should so live as to be martyrs in spirit. For the most part, that simply reflects an attitude of being put upon, and seeks the sympathetic admiration of others to stroke the ego. The Church saw that at the height of Roman persecution. Men and women would work themselves into some sort of ecstasy and go seeking out soldiers to whom they could confess their faith in hopes of being taken off for death in the arena. But, that’s not where God calls us. He calls us to accept the situation should it arise, but His primary direction remains that He has left is in the world though we are not of it. We can testify of our faith but once through death, but we can testify continuously through our lives. It’s His call, obviously, but we do Him a disservice, I think, by seeking to cut it short.
“To die is gain,” Paul said, and he meant it (Php 1:21). But, see where he took that. If I die, I’m with Christ, which is great for me. But, my remaining to continue my labors is far more necessary for your sake. Knowing that, I’m quite sure I’ll continue with you for some time yet (Php 1:22-26). The whole thrust of Peter’s letter requires that we reject the idea that death here is merely ‘dead in sins’. These were not people who supposed themselves still dead in sins. They had heard the Gospel and responded. They had persisted even as opposition grew. They might question their choice of God over gods, but that’s a different thing than supposing themselves dead in sins. No. The issue was that death – real, physical death – was a rather alarmingly real possibility. That was what was causing any questioning that might have been going on, and that was the fundamental issue Peter needed to address. He did so admirably. Death is not the end! It’s an introduction to the beginning.
In the meantime, we may find that somewhat cold comfort while we remain atop the sod. Evil seems to be prospering and the righteous take the punishment. Where, then, is the benefit in being righteous? This was hardly a new complaint in their day. The question arises repeatedly in Scripture, and the answer remains the same: “Vengeance is Mine” (Dt 32:35). The day of their calamity is near, and their doom hastens upon them. That, I should think, helps us to understand the end that is near. “The end of all things is at hand.” If we read that and suppose Peter is looking to that culminating day when heavens and earth are ripped asunder, then we must conclude that he was quite incorrect, and that will never do.
So, there are those who seek to point this to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was on the horizon as Peter wrote, and of which Jesus had prophesied. Clarke, for example, takes this position. But, that first supposes that Peter understood the thrust of that prophecy before it was fulfilled, which is questionable, and it also must suppose his readership to be comprised primarily of expatriate Jews which, while a common enough supposition amongst the commentaries, seems rather at odds with Paul’s record for church planting in that region. Further, it presents far too limited a scope for ‘all things’.
So, then, how are we to understand Peter in this instance? Well, one thing we might wish to note is that ‘things’ is not a specific word in the actual text. The term in question is pantoon, which we see again in the next verse. Notice that in that verse, there are no things. It’s simply ‘above all’, at least in the NASB. The same translation can be applied here. The end ‘of all’ is at hand. No man is ever far from the grave, and the grave, as I have noted, demarks an end of sorts. It is the end of opportunity, when it comes to the course of eternity. The end comes, and the reprobate will face the Judge. Even should he be amongst that one generation that is alive to see the Lord’s return, the fact remains: He will face the Judge. There is no escaping that. The same fundamental reality that anchors the faith of the believer – I know my Redeemer lives, and I shall stand with Him on that day (Job 19:25) – is the assurance that God’s Justice shall be served on their part. They may put the body of the believer to death today, but it’s a temporary inconvenience to the believer, and the seal of an eternal death on their own part. Men judge you as worthy of punishment. God judges otherwise, and His judgment is final.
That end is near for all. Measured against eternity, even the 900 years of Methuselah are but a moment, a blip. We live, so often, as if this life will persist interminably, but it won’t. As we age, that reality sinks in more and more. This ought, as Barnes notes, encourage serious, considerate thoughtfulness in us, preserving us from frivolous vanity. Sadly, too often it does no such thing. We seek to distract ourselves from its approach. We seek to convince ourselves of our youth. Even my father, now 85, seeks to convince himself that he’ll be around a long while yet. But, he plans for the more likely contingency. Death comes for us all, as concerns the flesh. The question is not whether we can escape that. We can’t. The question is, what then?
We are given to have a heavenly perspective, to recognize that all these long ages – not just the length of our days, but the length of history – remain but a moment. And with that in mind, go back to how Peter started this section. “For this purpose the Gospel has been preached.” Why? So that your eternity might consist in life rather than death. All men will eventually be ‘judged in the flesh’. The grave will come. Everybody gets a turn. But, however that end may come, it need not reflect your eternal condition.
Peter has, with the preceding section, pointed us backward to remember who and what we were. God does that for us every now and then. Remember what you were like? Remember where you were headed? But, neither Peter nor God does so to bring us back to a sense of guilt. No! The past is there so we can contrast it with the present. See what you were? See what you are now? Look what God has done with you, young man! What prevents Him doing so much more? You fear you shall never attain to heaven’s standard? You are quite right! Indeed, in your own strength, it’s an entirely impossible outcome. But, it’s not in your own strength. He Who began the work, Who has brought you this far, is faithful to complete it (Php 1:6). That’s your hope, not your own capacity.
We see the past, and we have a goal for the future. We have a goal to aim at, which consists in that life of persevering faith that Peter has been encouraging throughout. Daily, we must renew our determination and effort to reach that goal. Daily, such determination and effort become more central to our being, to our character. Daily, we fall short, but He picks us up again. Don’t lose hope. Don’t stop. The path is hard, and the goal may seem impossible to reach. But, keep going. It’s not you who will win the race anyway.
I think along these lines, and I find myself turning to Steve Taylor’s ‘The Finish Line’. I’ll just quote the last stanza here, because it so fits the word Peter is preaching. “Every idol like dust: A word scattered them all, and I rose to my feet when you scaled the last wall. And I gasped when I saw you fall – in His arms – at the finish line.” I’m adjusting the punctuation in there a bit, but that’s the story. We are so weak, and yet so arrogantly certain of our faith being sufficient. We’re so sure we can do it. Yes, yes. Every generation before us has failed, but they didn’t have me. NO! Every generation before you succeeded because they had Him. You will too. But, not because of yourself. Smash that idol! It’s the worst of the bunch, and the most devious. Fall in His arms. What He has determined about your finish line is what matters. He has set the goal and He has set you running. Just keep your eyes on Him, your ears open to Him and persevere. He’ll get you there.
This is a message I really needed to hear today, Lord, thank You. You know the various matters that have been rattling around my thoughts and my heart. You know the impossibility I see, and You know the solution. Oh God! Let me remain open to the solution You choose. Let me see the marvel of Your plan unfolding. Let me be willing to what You call me to do, however improbable it seems from here. And, if my current suppositions are misdirected, Lord, correct me. I am in Your hands. My household is in Your hands. Uncomfortable though it may be just now, I know there is no better place.
What does persevering faith look like? (01/18/15)
There are endless debates about the significance of the gifts of the Spirit, what they are, whether they persist. There are myriad opinions as to church polity and what our focus should be. Entire industries are around to provide us with programs and instructions and ideas on what to do and how to do it. Follow these twelve steps to produce a vibrant congregation. Use these techniques to make your services attractive to the new generation. So much to consider, so much to give our attention to! Peter boils it down to two items: Pray and love.
He has pointed out our past practice (1Peter 4:3-4). He now begins to present the alternative lifestyle we are to pursue. But, he starts with the goal before laying out the methods. See the end approaching, get serious and make prayer your purpose. You have seen the results of passions run rampant. Curb them. To the degree you are able, curb them. And, because the Spirit of the living God resides in you, you are able. Oh, believe me; I need look no farther back than yesterday to know how miserably I can fail at this. That doesn’t change the facts, though. I can. I have not trained myself to do so as consistently as I ought. I have chosen to fly off the handle rather than speak calmly in the face of the storm. But, that’s why Peter needs to address the point, isn’t it? If there were no difficulty in being sober-minded and sound of judgment, there would be no need for instruction to that end.
The sound judgment part is the more critical. The sober spirit serves to support such judgment. If we are flying off after passions and personal desires and opinions, we cannot be sound in judgment. If we are reacting we are not thinking. If we respond in kind, we are losing the argument by default. But, look! Peter isn’t urging this so that we can be better debaters. Be this way ‘for the purpose of prayer’. I might take this, then, to indicate that like the instruction to husbands back in 1Peter 3:7. Grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life so that your prayers may not be hindered. Here, it is be of sound judgment and sober minded. The purpose, though, is the same: For the purpose of prayer, which we might take as, lest your prayers be hindered.
The second command Peter gives us is to love and love fervently. Do you want to know what persevering faith looks like? This is it! It prays and it loves. These are the two characteristics that ought to define the life of the Christian. If they do not, it must be understood, then what you have been calling faith is in reality just a mental exercise. Understand, these are not ways to work up faith. They are reflections of the reality of faith. If we make a work of prayer, if we are doing it only because we feel we must, only as following orders, then we aren’t really praying anyway, and the prayers we may offer up are worthless collections of empty words. If we try to act in a loving fashion, but don’t actually love, this isn’t love. It’s hypocrisy of perhaps the worst sort. It is no evidence of faith and may very well be evidence of faith’s absence. Lacking actual faith, but well fed as to religion, what happens? We seek a way to prove that we possess that which we don’t. We seek to convince ourselves of faith by our works because we don’t see the proper works flowing from our absent faith.
Maybe there’s a place for it, a stage in our growth where we have to fake what we don’t actually feel. I seem to recall some teachings to that effect. But, where does it lead? Does it lead to actual, honest expressions of prayer and love? Or does it lead to empty habits? I’m not sure I have a solid answer for that. But, I know what I read in Scripture about empty ritual, and it seems to me that if all I’m doing is putting on the appearances of that which I sense I am supposed to be doing, rather than doing it from the overflow of God’s love within me, then I am doing nothing more than empty ritual.
On loving prayer (01/18/15-01/19/15)
I am already, I see, transitioned to the next topic I have to cover; that of loving prayer. I have said there are two commands in this passage, and there are. But, they are so intimately connected we might well construe them as one. Love, as the JFB notes, is to be the animating spirit behind our prayers. They apply the point more broadly, but I’ll hold it here for the moment. Praying flows from loving. At the same time, loving flows from praying. There’s a sort of systemic feedback loop between the two. As you pray for this person and that, it stirs the heart to consider their needs and their qualities. The former consideration begins to produce that compassion which God wishes for us to have one for another. The latter consideration strengthens the bonds of our fellowship with them, reminding us of the gift they are. Then, as love grows and finds cause and opportunity to express itself in actions, one action we will find encouraged by love is to pray for the loved one more.
Now, I must come back to the question I started to explore in the last section. What do I do when I don’t feel it? What am I to do if I discover that I don’t particularly love my brother, at least not to the point of caring enough to do something for their need? What do I do when I find myself of the opinion that prayer is a duty I just have to get through, instead of seeing it as the marvelous privilege it is? I only ask this because it is a major concern to me.
Let me start with this point. When it comes to prayer, we hit one of those points where everybody seems to be in agreement. Calvinist or Arminian, it doesn’t matter. Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever else, the perspective remains the same. Prayer must be in earnest, and not a mere formality. Don’t do this just because it’s a command. I take those particular points from Calvin and Clarke respectively, and in general I find these two about as diametrically opposed in viewpoint as can be the case while still holding to Scripture as the guide. Now, let me fold back in the liquid ingredients of the JFB. Love does not excel prayer, but is the animating spirit apart from which all works are dead. That’s the full power of their statement, and it is nothing more than the echo of Paul’s message to the Corinthians. Gifts of power or eloquent prayers or finest oration on the doctrines of God will amount to nothing if they are not pouring forth from love and in love.
Here, I find myself in a very difficult place. I am called to pray for a set of folks in our local body. It is a duty assigned as an elder. I am called to offer a public prayer for the congregation once every month or so. Neither of these can be said to be comfortable duties for me. They can be said to be duties, and that already puts them in a risk category. I have to do this. If that is my mindset going in, how quickly this can all devolve to dead work. In some cases, the particular parishioners I am asked to lift in prayer are little more than names on a paper to me. I don’t know them (to my shame), and if I do, I know little enough about what’s going on in their world. What, then, am I supposed to be praying on their behalf? And how, sweet Lord, do I do so from Your love? I don’t love this duty. That’s a problem. How can I say I love them, if I can’t even say I know them? How can I do this right when the fundamentals are wrong?
I long ago learned to resist the call to ‘repeat after me’ prayers. Why? Because it’s highly unlikely that any such prayer is offered from a place of sincerity. Depending who’s leading the thing, it’s entirely possible I will find myself putting forward words with which I cannot honestly say I agree. Where’s the good in that? Is a prayer offered in dishonesty likely to be a prayer given in the name of Jesus? It seems at least as likely to me that such a prayer is a stench and an offense in His nostrils, and as likely to bring disciplinary action as to bring any desired result.
That same sense applies in these prayers of duty. If they are toss-offs, what’s the value to anybody? It is nil. Indeed, they are a danger to my soul. But, there is this counterbalancing concern. I should love these folks. I should know them, care about them enough to have knowledge of events in their lives. It may be not be in depth, but it should at least be something, shouldn’t it? This is a particular agony for me in this role of elder. But, I think the problem is more widespread than that. The same thing is given as the characterization not just of the elder, but of the believer more generally. It is not just as a leader I am called to be like this, but as a child of God, an ambassador of His kingdom.
I would love to be able to turn the corner of this line of thought, to arrive at a place where everything’s ok, and I can just rest in Him. In part, I know that’s the answer anyway. But, the degree to which this point has been brought to bear as I have prepared this study, and several concerns of recent days tell me that I cannot just set this aside and ‘let God’. If, after all, we cannot even manage to love our brothers, how are we ever going to get to the place of having a love for the lost?
I’m going to steal a pack of words from myself at this point, and repeat what I was writing when I first came through these verses. “Love, though, must turn my prayers outward. Love sees what my fellow believer is going through and seeks their comfort. Love sees not so much the sin of my brother, but what that sin is doing to him, and prays that God would help him to be freed of that sin once for all. Love sees the lost and wants nothing so much as to see them found. Love sees the reprobate and cannot be satisfied with the truth that his punishment will glorify God. Love, being God’s own love, desires that the reprobate might yet be saved.” You know, in preparation for these notes, I pulled that down and set it in bold.
This is what it’s supposed to look like. This is what Christian character feels. I am in agony just now because I cannot say that it is what I feel – not with any great consistency. Oh, there are those particular ones for whom I feel a certain kinship and comradery. There are those ones who, when they come up in my cycle of prayer, produce a certain warmth of feeling. But, even there, I’m not sure the degree to which I could say I see what they’re going through, let alone what sins they might be battling. I can lay the blame on them for not sharing, but that’s just avoiding my own responsibility.
How I wish I was arriving at answers to the problem this morning, but I’m not. I’m arriving at a keen awareness of the problem itself. But, I await the answers I need. God has them, to be sure, and I am confident He shall provide them. In the meantime, I am left with awareness and that is something at least. I have to be careful as to this tendency towards self-centeredness. It’s back to pride in another disguise. Isn’t it odd that one can be pridefully self-centered in matters of humility? And yet, that is the case. Here, that same disease is seen spreading into the very realm of prayer. Prayer, if I am not careful, will seek to lift my pride right up before the throne of God and suppose it some marvelous gift to present to my King. This can be the case even as I am praying to Him about others. There is that dread undertone of, “Look what I’m doing, God!” See? I’m being obedient. Pat my head please, and tell me what a good boy I am. And right there, the whole thing becomes vanity and wind.
Well, Father, this may remain a tad self-centered, but I see that I need help, and I know that You alone can provide it. I so want to make You proud of me. But, I don’t want that to slip into empty works done out of duty alone. I want to love as You wish me to love, to care about what You care about. I see that in many ways I don’t, and that frankly scares me. All I can do this morning is set myself back in Your hands, not that I ever leave them, for You remain You. But, so much is wrenching my heart. You know. There’s this matter. There’s matters of Truth and action. You know all that is weighing on me, and You know how inadequate I am to deal with any of it. I know it, too. But, my God! Don’t let me try and lift this all with this weak frame. It would crush me. Yet, I know I’d try and do it anyway, even knowing it would be to no avail. Come, then, and let me know Your love and Your wisdom and Your strength lifting me to where I can serve You as I ought.
There is a secondary point that both Calvin and Matthew Henry address in regard to Peter’s discussion of prayer. Mr. Henry identifies Peter’s point as being to remain fit for prayer. Our prayers too often suffer from a lack of alertness. This both reduces our inclination to pray, because we don’t really see the need, and then distracts us when we do get to praying, because our minds wander. Nothing so sharpens the mind for prayer as sensing a looming problem beyond our scope for solution! I don’t say that this is a good thing, or as it ought to be. But, it is clearly a reality for us, and may indeed be part of the reason that God finds it to our benefit to be set amidst trials.
What particularly captured my notice, though, was the verse he brought in to support his development of Peter’s point. He brings forward Luke 21:34, which indeed serves even better as backing for Mr. Calvin’s comment. Let me start with the Scripture, though. “Be on guard, that your hearts may not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day come on you suddenly like a trap.” You can certainly hear these points echoing through Peter’s letter, can’t you? You used to live like them, but now you see that the end draws near. So be alert, sober of spirit, and pray!
Calvin, as I said, echoes the same thought. “For as an indulgence in surfeiting and sleep renders the body unfit for its duties, so the vain cares and pleasures of this world inebriate the mind and render it drowsy.” Now, I note that he switches from the dissipation of Luke to surfeit. Frankly, neither term is all that familiar to our ears, so let’s stop and consider briefly. A quick glance at the KJV, en route to the interlinear text, shows that they too translate the matter as surfeit, so that will make things a bit easier. Strong’s puts the term as indicating that headachy pain that comes of drunkenness, but then notes that it also speaks to the matter of glut, or gluttony. The general consensus of the lexicons seems to be that this retains reference to drunkenness, primarily its effects on the head. Modern English usage widens the application to encompass anything done to excess, any overindulgence. That puts us back in the realm of gluttony. However, modern usage does not serve to explain the sense intended by either the Greek or the translators working in the 17th century England.
So, then, let it be said that Jesus is speaking to matters of drunkenness in that passage from Luke, and that Calvin is speaking to that same topic. This fits well with the context of Peter’s letter, with is previous mention of past behaviors. It is a compare and contrast situation. This is what you were like, drunk to the point of giddiness, plagued by the follow-on headaches that clouded your thinking and left you crying again for drink to drown the pain. Now? Sober in spirit and sound of judgment. These two stand opposite the old behavior. And they leave you fit for the purpose of prayer.
May I just note this about the matter? If sober spirit and sound judgment are needed for prayer, this rather strongly advocates a solid mental engagement in prayer. There is, I still hold, a place for prayer in tongues, but it is the exception rather than the rule. If praying in tongues gets me past the limitations of my fallen brain, then there’s really not much call for Peter’s instruction. If, on the other hand, I pray with both spirit and mind, per Paul’s example (1Co 14:15), I need to remain very aware both of the words I am praying and of the God to whom I address my words. The prayer that avails much must accord with the will of the God we ask to answer. It will not be so arrogant as to demand an answer, but will seek humbly to pursue His will in all things.
I am glad I have read these two points more closely. But I would be fooling myself to suppose that the worries of life are not capable of reducing my capacity for prayer. It’s not even the worries. The worries of life might at least lead me to a clear sense of my need for God. It’s more the distractions of life. Perhaps this is another term that has shifted meaning over time, but I don’t think so.
We conquer drunkenness, which is really one of the easier sins to deal with, isn’t it? It’s easy, because the results are too obvious and the pursuit too public. It’s not a sin one can readily hide away with any great success. Even if one manages to evade notice while in pursuit of such a habit, the physical toll shows. So, we deal with it, if only because pride leaves us little choice. Then it gets really dangerous, because our lying minds seek to convince us that having dealt with this obvious, observable sin, we’re in good shape now. We can let down our guard, relax and let God. But, God points us to new dangers: The worries of life. They creep up on us unawares. They blindside us. They suck us down, taking all our time and drowning out our prayers and we don’t even notice it until the air is all but gone from our spiritual lives. Be on guard!
Innocent habits, innocent hobbies, these will vie to take your time. These will vie to take God’s place [with another nod to Steve Taylor]. I may as well add a touch of Charlie Peacock while I’m at it. They are things which weren’t so bad, it’s just that they were never things that we could trust. They are empty, worthless pursuits, not necessarily harmful in themselves, but they erode the time we have for weighty and valuable pursuits. Do you know what comes of this? Guilt. We spend our day in idle entertainments and them come to the end of the day feeling the guilt of having wasted our time yet again. Then comes the list of things we know we should have been doing, and the recognition of how little time we have, really, to be doing them, and we feel the guilt. And that guilt robs us of our sleep, and the lack of sleep leaves us with less strength to hit the next day. So, what do we do? We go back to our idle entertainments because we just don’t have it in us to do anything more meaningful. And so the cycle continues.
Be on guard! Don’t let this junk weigh your heart down. And, if it has been weighing your heart down, get it out of here. Be sober-minded. No, that doesn’t sound like as much fun as being frivolous. But, then, this isn’t about having fun. It’s about serving the King. There is assuredly an immensity of joy in that serving. There is far more joy in that serving than shall ever be obtained in the pursuit of entertainment and distraction. Judge soundly. Here are the things that occupy your time, there are the things of God. Hmm. Which ought to have my attention? Let God be praised! Let me be serious about the purpose of prayer, and let prayer flow from a true, ardent, fervent love both for God and for my fellow Christians. Let love flow in prayer and prayer flow in love.
Covering Sin (01/19/15-01/20/15)
Coming to the matter of love, we must seek to lay hold of Peter’s meaning in saying that love covers a multitude of sins. It really isn’t so very hard to get this right. It’s just that we also find it very easy to take it wrong. We kind of want that incorrect meaning to be the real meaning because it would go a fair distance towards alleviating our perceived debt before heaven. If love covers a multitude of sins, the thinking goes, then I can atone for a goodly chunk of my sins by loving you. But, there is just so much wrong with that line of thought that we simply must counter and correct it.
First and foremost, it is not your sins that are in view, oh lover. It is the sins of your loved one. Second, though you stand as an ambassador of heaven’s King, you are not really authorized to pronounce forgiveness, only to direct that poor sinner to the One who can. Your authority, it must be remembered, only extends so far as it concurs with His will. All authority has been given to Jesus (Mt 28:18). That assuredly includes the authority to command your footsteps and your behavior. That authority, to be sure, includes the authority on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2:10). But, note well: That authority is for the Son of Man. He speaks to His own, and says, “I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you” (Lk 10:19). That, I cannot help but notice, remains well short of all authority. God is hardly to be accounted so foolish as to set all His authority in the hands of man.
Indeed, if we take the first clauses of His high priestly prayer into account, we find that even with Jesus, in whom resides all authority, there is a limit set. “Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life” (Jn 17:2). The all is a qualified all. Those whom the Father has not given Him? He still has authority over them, let there be no doubt about that. But, it must be seen that this does not extend to the giving of eternal life in their case.
Father, I invite Your correction if I am saying anything incorrect here. Indeed, I beg it of You.
We, who are servants of the Most High God, are even more circumscribed as to our authority. It is a wide-ranging authority, but never so wide-ranging as to be granted the right to do anything counter to God’s plan and purpose. Even the right thing done out of His purpose is wrong. Let me go back to the point about Jesus. He has authority to give life to those the Father gave Him. Well, we would think, giving life is surely good. How can it be bad to give such a good to any man? What, then, would have come of it had Jesus given life to one whom the Father had not given Him? There could have been no greater catastrophe! In that one act, done out of accord with the Father’s will, the whole purpose of Creation would have been destroyed, and His purpose in having taken on flesh, taken on our weakness, would have been null and void. There would be no atonement, no forgiveness, no hope.
If we seek to apply a good work of God in a place He has not authorized, in a fashion which lies outside of His plan and purpose, can we hope to achieve a better result? I think not.
Let’s come back to Peter’s declaration that love covers a multitude of sins. He is but echoing Proverbs 10:12 – Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions. This has to do with how we respond to personal affront, not how we are able to impact eternal matters. Granted, how we respond may well serve to influence such matters inasmuch as our response may either help or hinder another in their drawing nigh to God. But, this is not looking directly at eternity. It is looking at the temporal situation – the very same situation Peter’s been addressing all along. You are faced with persecution, with libelous words, with slanderous accusations. How you respond matters. Don’t respond in kind. Don’t return evil for evil.
Now comes another part of the reality of Christian life. It’s not just those outside the kingdom that are going to hurt us. There are going to be those inside the kingdom, those we figure really ought to know and do better, who are going to hurt us just as badly, if not worse. You want a real ugly reality? You are going to hurt some fellow believer just as badly, if not worse. How would you have that brother respond when you realize what you’ve done and come seeking forgiveness? Would you really wish for that brother to broadcast your failure to the community at large? No, I didn’t think so. Love, Paul reminds us, “Does not take into account a wrong suffered” (1Co 13:5). That’s what we’re talking about here. Refuse to take offense, and if you cannot do that successfully, then forgive. Keep forgiving.
There may indeed come a time for the discipline of the church to bear on the situation, but even there, Jesus gives us a formula that is saturated in love. If your brother sins, try to take care of it in private (Mt 18:15), only if he will not listen to you take it further, and even then, try and keep it to one or two who know the facts and can confirm what you are saying (Mt 18:16). To lay his guilt before the church is a last resort, the final straw before he becomes to you ‘as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer’ (Mt 18:17), which is to say, one in need of hearing the gospel again for the very first time, and if he will not hear it even then, recognize that he is outside the fold.
But, love seeks to step past the hurts that may come in a moment of heated disagreement. Love recognizes the person behind the heat, knows this is an aberration, not a habitual characteristic. Love will not allow itself to be pushed to hatred. Hatred just stirs up strife, as the Proverb notes. Love is the opposite, does the opposite, and stirs up peace. There is your covering of sins: Refuse to take offense. Refuse to level the charge of sin against that one who sins against you. This is not to say you should simply bury the matter by internalizing it. No. That sort of activity will lead to a festering resentment that is going to boil over at some point. That’s not forgiveness. That’s avoidance. Forgiveness forgets. It accepts that this wrong, however great, was done in a moment of weakness, and prays strength. It accepts that the crime flowed out of frustration or, which is at least as likely, out of a depth of loving concern. Seeing that, how could love not respond in kind by responding in love? Oh! It is so easy for things to escalate. It is so easy for wounded pride to trump spiritual wisdom. But, the greater wisdom, the greater love, lies in tamping pride back down, rejecting the offense and responding in peace. I don’t say it’s the easier way, but I must concur with Paul that it is the more excellent way.
This is something on which I find no disagreement amongst the commentaries. It is a call to us to ‘pass by’ the faults of others, a call to forgiveness. It indicates the willingness we ought to have to forgive and forget. That is not, however, without its own limits. Here, too, we find agreement. We are to forgive, excuse and forget those faults, “as far as is consistent with truth”, says Clarke. “We ought to cover others’ sins only where love itself does not require the contrary”, reads the JFB. And by no means may we suppose that our willingness to forgive serves as some sort of satisfaction before God as concerns our own sins. Granted, that He calls us to forgive others lest we find ourselves unforgiven by Him. But, that is a matter of gratitude on our part, and of reflecting the nature of the One we call Lord. Our willingness to forgive has not bought us pardon for the least of our sins. There is nothing within us which could buy such a pardon. Thus, the God-man.
There remains one point from Calvin that I feel the need to address here. “Whosoever is immoderately fervent in self-love, loves others coldly.” This, of course, gets back to the issue of pride. What is pride, after all, than an immoderately fervent self-love? If we are prideful, our love for others will prove to be, as he says, cold. We can manage the display for a time, but it will not be maintained because it’s not real. Perhaps I should contemplate this in the reverse order. Whoever finds himself lacking in love for others might do well to consider if this is not the underlying issue. Are you too full of yourself to make space for anybody else?
I would not push this too far, but I also would not neglect to test myself in this regard. In plain point of fact, if I were to be asked as to my own condition here, I should have to say my love for others is at the very least limited in scope. There are a few for whom I would say my love is deep and fervent. There are many others of whom I would have said this was true when we were in regular contact. Yet, I find, out of sight, out of mind. Even with family this proves to be the case. As concerns those in my church, those I am to be shepherding? I fear I fall far short in every instance. I find in myself a much greater love for doctrine and knowledge than for the messy work of practice. And, knowing this root of pride that God has been working out of me seemingly forever now, I have to see the problem here: Immoderate self-love.
This is very much on my radar of late, and if it is, I know it is so because herein I will find God working with me. That is to say, herein I ought to be working with Him. I have allowed certain habits to creep in, to accumulate, which have the effect of pumping up that pride and ego. Things that I often joke about, but which, I discover, my thought-life actually starts believing to a far greater degree than it should. For shame! It seemed so harmless, a joking display of pride, clearly intended for humor not for truth. And yet, every joke has its grain of truth, doesn’t it? So, I hear the Lord calling me to a work of repentance, an effort to dispense with this joke which convinces me to think far more highly of myself than I ought.
I must be careful, as well, with the impact of these studies. If they are doing no more than pumping up my self-image, then they are not only failing of doing any good, they are doing serious harm. If I am learning for the sake of learning, or of winning debates, or what have you, I’m only stoking pride. If, on the other hand, I am pursuing Truth so as to align myself with Truth and make it my lifeblood, then I pursue my God. But, even in this, I must recognize my capacity for misleading myself both as to motive and as to outcome. I am in His hands entirely. If I am to grow in Him, it will be by His grace, and all this work, while good, must be held in His grace lest it make of His good a great evil, and a launching point for sin.
Father, I hear You. I see clearly, at least as clearly as I am capable of seeing at present, that I am in a dangerous place for my particular tendencies toward pride. I need You, and You make that painfully clear. You also know the tests amidst which I find myself at present. I have one desire: To be faithful to You. I see landmines on every side, and I know my own frailty and weakness of thought. I know my general dislike of conflict, and I see nothing but conflict ahead. Let me not be swayed from upholding Your Truth by these concerns, nor let them overwhelm me, for You are with me. If it be the case that this is not a task You are calling me to, then grant me the wisdom to lay it aside and pursue peace. As to other questions and ideas of the future that have been in my thoughts of late, here, too, I lay them before You. You know the desires, and You know from whence they come, whether from You or from my own thoughts. Help me, in all this, to know Your thoughts, and to pursue them as You give the strength and the direction. May You be glorified in all I do, particularly what I do in ministering to Your family, but in all things. Yes, and amen.
Stewards of Gifts (01/21/15)
Having brought us to the consideration of that love we are to have for one another, Peter moves to considerations that flow from this. If we are to love one another, if we are to be hospitable, what does this say about the things we have from God? Each one has received a gift, he says. The introductory ‘as’, or ‘inasmuch as’, does not indicate that the gift is in question. It might better to hear it as ‘because’. It does not indicate any doubt as to the existence of those gifts, but sets the fact of their having been received as the cause for the necessity of what follows.
Try it in this form. You have received gifts. They are just that: Gifts. They were given to you out of the manifold grace of God – the same God who calls you to this fervent love for one another. Seeing this, it should be clear that those gifts were given to be used in serving one another (and not for self-satisfying ends). You are stewards of what God has given you. Act the part.
To the folks receiving this letter, the nature of the steward was entirely familiar. Chances are that they either had a steward, labored under a steward or were a steward themselves. They would know, then, that the steward was a household slave, a doulos, albeit one entrusted with much. In fact, he would be so well trusted by the owner of the house that he would be left in charge of all the household business and maintenance in the absence of said owner. If the owner had to go on a journey for whatever reason, the steward saw to the daily operations of the household and business. If there was buying and selling to be done, he saw to it. If there were other slaves to be fed, workers to be paid, disciplines to be meted out, all of this would be under his direction until the owner returned. This is an image Jesus uses to describe how His disciples should be operating (Lk 12:42-43 – Who is the faithful, sensible steward whom the master will give charge of his servants to ensure they are cared for? Blessed is that slave the master finds doing so when he comes.) It is interesting to note that this was given in response to a question from Peter. No wonder he took that image to heart.
So, then, the steward: The slave serving as treasurer to the household. Indeed, if I understand the role correctly, this might well include seeing to the care of family members as well as fellow slaves. And this is the image we are given for the duty of the Christian on this earth. You have been given stewardship of these gifts. They are given into your hand, but in a very real sense, they remain His. They are given into your hands to be used, not to be stashed away. They are given into your hands for the purpose of being employed in the service of one another, not for display, not for self-satisfaction, not for prestige.
In plain point of fact, as the Apostles take pains to point out, nobody has all the gifts they might need. No Christian is sufficient unto himself. We need each other by design. We are equipped to aid one another by design. This is how it is supposed to be. Those who convince themselves that they’re OK with ‘just me and God’, or, ‘just me and my Bible’, who suppose that they can be a Christian apart from the fellowship of their brethren, have missed the very nature of God’s design. There just isn’t any place in the kingdom for lone rangers. Even Paul surrounded himself with others to minister together with himself. Even Peter, as he writes this letter, would seem pretty clearly to be availing himself of the gifts of others to render his message clear, meaningful and valuable to those to whom he is ministering.
The command to love our brothers would seem already to preclude any such idea of going it alone. How shall I love my brother if I refuse to associate with him? Or, shall I suppose myself permitted to choose which brother I shall love and allow my gifts to serve? No. This, too, is precluded. I was thinking of the parable of the Good Samaritan, but that refers us to neighbor, not brother. Let me offer instead this verse. “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Mk 3:35). It is not, then, unconditional to the point of universalism. It is, however, unconditional within the set bounds. “Whoever does the will of God.” There is nothing in there for the select few from within that number. There is no qualifying, “if we get along with each other.” Whoever.
Having, then, established this much, how are we to enter into this role of steward? Here, I think we can allow the previous verse to offer comment: “Without complaint”. That is to say, as the Wycliffe Commentary says, “giving of self and substance gladly.” Understand that all we have – everything – is given by God, and all of it is given for the common good. This is not a call to communal living or socialism or any such thing. It is a recognition that what we have is not for ourselves alone. It is not that we should impose some system of governance which takes whatever it sees as excess from us to provide for what it sees as lacking for another. It is about heart condition. It is about being ready yourself to impart from what God has given you for the good of others.
It is simultaneously about recognizing that you are not the only one equipped to provide, nor is the one you are helping the only one in need. We are each of us equipped to provide – you all have received some gift from God. We are each of us in need of that which the other can therefore impart. It is a life of mutual submission and mutual service – all for the common good. For, as the JFB points out, “The Spirit’s gifts are the common property of the Christian community.”
Certainly, this precludes their use for selfish, prideful purposes. They are not given that we may preen as we compare our fine gift with somebody else’s less impressive gift (by our poor measure). They are not for comparison. They are for service. They are not for show. They are for purpose, for the common good. Neither, it must be made clear, are the gifts the point. I am not, at this juncture, going to consider the gifts as specifically, or even primarily, those gifts we commonly refer to as the charismata. The gifts of the Spirit are not, I think, to be constrained to that list exclusively, nor do we have cause to insist that it is these gifts particularly that Peter is talking about.
Again: All we have is given by God for the common good. It may be something as seemingly trivial as a glass of water, or a hug, or a pat on the back, a word of encouragement, a note of concern for what a brother is dealing with. It could be anything, really (with obvious limitations). If, then, we are making the possession of these gifts the point, it would seem we fall into that error which Simon the magician committed. He recovered, and so can we. But, we are given his story to learn from it. To seek the gifts without seeking after their purpose; to possess the gifts without employing them to their purpose, this is a terrible thing. It is a robbing of God. Think about it. That steward whom the master put in charge: If he starts using the household funds to buy himself treats, or to take in a show, or any other such self-serving act, would we not immediately see that he is stealing from his master? If you, in your employment, are spending all your working hours cruising Facebook, or reading blogs, or on the phone chatting with friends, or what have you, would you not be rightly accused of stealing from your employer? And, these are but men like yourselves! What, then, when the master is God, and our actions are of like kind? Ought we not properly to be pleading for forgiveness when we have so lightly esteemed His gifts and His worth?
Adam Clarke notes another means by which we risk robbing God with our use of His gifts. “Those who give anything as from themselves, rob God.” Oh, pride! How beguiled we are by its tricks. How quickly we turn God’s work into our own. How difficult to look upon what He has done through us without falling into that place of saying, “Well! Look what I did!” No! You didn’t do it. Now, I understand that the nature of language makes it difficult to speak of this properly without sounding stilted and prideful even in the process of trying to be humble. I don’t want to get caught up in the way we speak of what God is doing through us, because that in itself can easily become a stumbling block of pride. But, how do we think about these things? That’s the question to be answered. Am I stunned to find God willing to do this through such a vessel as me, or am I so full of myself as to forget God was in it?
Let me, with that thought, point out once again that the things we have as a gift from Him encompass every good thing we have at all. It’s not just those particular gifts we associate with ministry. It’s a true in our employments, in our educational pursuits, in our efforts at raising a family or whatever other activities may occupy our time. We are, to put it in relatively current phrase, not all that.
This is, or should be a truly humbling recognition: God does the good. He chooses to do so through our instrumentality. He chooses to use you. Understand well that He doesn’t have to do so. God does not require your skills to achieve His purpose. Indeed, a bit of self-awareness must lead us to acknowledge that our help is probably anything but helpful. But, He chooses to use us anyway. Why? Because He loves us; because He knows it is good for us to do these things, that it will help us to grow up. But, don’t lose sight of the fact that in all of this, it is still God Who does. On those occasions when I have felt that immediacy of God doing something through me, I have noticed this about the situation: The minute my thoughts start to turn to, “Look what I’m doing,” it stops. Why? Because I have really been so daft as to suppose I was doing it. If not so foolish a thing as that, I have become bedazzled by the gift to the point of losing sight of the Giver and of His purpose.
Let me offer up one final thought from Barnes under this heading. “No one is bound to go beyond his ability; everyone is required to come up to it.” What a beautiful place of balance he presents. I am not required by God to attempt to pursue your gifting, nor are you required to pursue mine. We are each of us given our own particular gifts and purposes to pursue, and it is these only that He requires us to act upon. Even in those pursuits, He does not insist we do more than we are able. The mere fact that we can do anything has already moved us beyond our ability in a very real sense. Remember? He does it. I am but an instrument.
I play a saxophone, and I will readily admit that a fine instrument contributes more to the playing than a poorly constructed or maintained instrument. But, there is never a point where that instrument does the playing. It remains an instrument. Apart from my use of it, it will do nothing, can do nothing. That is the picture we have for our own service to God. We are the saxophone and He is the player. We are to sound to our fullest as He plays, not muffling or muting His tone, but it is all Him. There are other saxophones He could play if He chose, and many of them of finer craftsmanship than you or I. That’s not the point. He doesn’t ask us to sound like those instruments. He asks us to sound like the instrument He fashioned us to be – no more, but most assuredly no less.
Concerns for the teacher (01/22/15)
Moving on to verse 11, we face the question of just who it is Peter has in mind as ‘whoever speaks’. There is wide variety of interpretation on this question. The JFB, for example, suggests that Peter is addressing prophets, which they define as ‘divinely taught teachers’. This probably flows from the term Peter uses in regard to their activity, utterances; which we might have translated oracles. But, a prophet ought not to need any such admonition. The prophet who speaks anything else is no prophet. Others scope this to those filling the role of preacher or teacher. My inclination is to follow the line of thinking that finds this applying more widely, to any who would speak godly council.
Indeed, Matthew Henry pursues this understanding so far as to point out that for every Christian, it should be the case that our private conversation is no different than our public. Whether in private or in public, our words ought to remain pure and godly. The point is not in regard to content so much as character. Note the ‘as it were’ clause. It is not to say we should all go out prophesying, as if in possession of some fresh revelation from the Lord. It is a question of how we handle that revelation which we have been given through Scripture, through the preaching and teaching of the Apostles, of the Church. It is as if he had written, when you speak, bear in mind that your words are not your own. They are God’s words and you are intended to be speaking as from Him, being His steward.
That is the key, connecting factor that flows into this verse from verse 10. You are stewards in regard to every gift God has given you, and that most assuredly includes your words. It certainly includes those you intentionally speak on matters of faith and Truth. It ought, as Mr. Henry said, to apply to everything you speak, whatever the setting and whatever the immediate purpose. You are the steward of God’s words. Act accordingly.
This instruction certainly applies as we seek to explain and apply the word of God to others, and even to ourselves. One thing I am recognizing more of late is that this also MUST apply to our internal discussions and debates as to what His word truly says and what develops from that. In other words, where we are called to defend the faith, or to discern the validity of some particular teaching, this applies more strongly than ever. You are the steward of God’s words. Act accordingly. That is not to say you are the expert and ought not to brook any dissention. It is to acknowledge the exact opposite, really. You are no more the expert than is that one with whom you hold discussions. You are, unless it be proven otherwise, both stewards of words not your own. They are not your words. They belong to the God you serve. In this setting, to act accordingly is to do one’s utmost to avoid moving from discussion and exploration into denunciation. To be sure, there is a firmly set boundary beyond which denunciation is the only proper course. But, by and large, it would seem to be the case that our disputations revolve not around matters of salvific import, but around secondary matters.
In these cases, it should be obvious that where there is disagreement one party at most can be correct in their assessment. There’s a reasonable likelihood nobody is correct. His ways remain far above our own, though He has been so gracious as to reveal so much of Himself to our understanding. We act as stewards of His word when we acknowledge our fallibility, and when we grant the one with whom we disagree the acknowledgement of good faith on their part. We act as good stewards when, in pursuing such discussions, we are prepared to accept correction as readily as to provide correction. If the goal of all involved is to arrive at a clearer understanding of the Truth of God, and excluding such matters as are of salvific importance, we can accept a result that remains in disagreement. The old adage about agreeing to disagree can and should apply here. The result ought not to be the shouting down of the other’s viewpoint because they have failed to convince. If their foundation is reasonable, even if different than the conclusions you reach, let it stand. You are both stewards of words that remain under the sole proprietorship of God.
As concerns our own teaching, our own understanding, the boundaries are being staked out. We have Paul’s condemnation of any who would present a contrary gospel (Gal 1:8-12). We have John’s instruction to his charges concerning those who come with contrary teaching (2Jn 10-11). Now, we add Peter’s admonition to speak those words which come from God, or to speak as though doing so, which amounts to very nearly the same thing. Be careful of your doctrine. Be careful of becoming a proponent of false doctrine. This can happen even as we seek to hold to the truth. The lies are subtle, and men of earnest desire for Truth can find themselves inadvertently wandering down a false path. This is why we find such strict bounds set upon us. Calvin puts it in legal terms. You are legally bound to offer only that doctrine which has been received from God, giving no room so ever for human inventions. Clarke concurs. Teach only what Scripture teaches and authenticates. Teach as one who feels the weight of this responsibility to be in accord with the revealed Truth of God, as Barnes advises.
This requires hard work from the teacher. It requires constant awareness of the teacher – going back to that call for sound judgment and sober spirit. It is so easy to get caught up in pursuing lines of thought that are really vain imaginations. It’s easy to get swept up in a flash of insight, as we feel it to be, to suppose the Spirit speaking to us (not to deny the possibility) but in reality to simply be flying off after our own foolish thoughts. Remember. You’re a steward of God’s words. You do have these legal limits set upon you. Teach only what Scripture teaches, whether teaching others or merely teaching yourself.
It is hard work, but I tell you this: It remains a much easier task than undoing all the incorrect beliefs that will grow from the seed of false doctrine. Mark Twain’s point applies. “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” There are enough who are willing to have their ears tickled. We are not immune. There are more than enough willing to do the tickling, and ever more avenues for them to do so. One need only consider the effort of the early church councils to establish the true doctrine of the church and to weed out the false. Yet, it can be seen that most if not all of the heresies identified and removed in those councils continue to this day. The lie doesn’t die so easily. It takes another disguise, bides its time, finds another set of willing ears and returns. We are called to remain vigilant as to our own belief, for as a man believes, so he teaches, else he is no teacher at all.
To whom the glory? (01/23/15)
Coming to the close of this passage, we arrive at a brief doxology. There is, apparently some question as to whether Peter addresses this to Christ or to the Father, or as may be the case, to God in His Triune fullness. Certainly, the bulk of the passage has referred to God without specifying a particular Person of the Trinity. The will of God, the grace of God, the utterances of God and the strength of God are all brought forward. But, in the end, it is in order that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The specific mention of Jesus at the end would seem to indicate that Peter is thinking of God in full in the remainder. Otherwise, it would be more reasonable to expect that he would speak of the Father’s will, the Father’s words, and so on.
Does it make a difference, in the end, whether Peter’s doxology had Christ alone or God in full as its intended recipient? Yes, I think it might. It behooves us to remain mindful that Father, Son and Spirit are equally God; that what can be attributed to one must necessarily be attributed to all three Persons. There may be distinction of roles as God pursues His singular plan. Certainly, the role of Mediator is assigned to Christ alone, not to the Father or the Spirit. How could the Father serve as Mediator between Himself and another? It would not be mediation. Similarly, the Spirit alone is spoken of as proceeding, whereas the Son is spoken of as begotten. So, there are distinctions of some fashion, but not as concerns their essence. If one Person is deserving of glory, then all three persons are equally deserving of glory. If all dominion (kratos [2904]: vigor, force, strength, power, dominion) belongs to God, it belongs to Father, Son and Spirit equally.
The commentaries appear to be split as to how this doxology is to be assigned, whether to Christ or God. Matthew Henry assigns it to Christ and takes it as a proof that He is indeed the Most High God. The JFB agrees as to this assignment, but also notes the presentation of Jesus Christ as our Mediator. It is through Him that blessing comes to us. It is through Him that our praises reach God. “Through Christ alone can God be glorified in us,” they conclude. Amen and amen! Our best acts of righteousness remain as filthy rags, and there is no goodness in us that we might find cause to boast before God. That, however, does not settle the doxology as being addressed to Him. It doesn’t refuse such a conclusion, but it doesn’t settle it.
Calvin insists that the context requires us to apply this doxology to God in full, rather than Christ specifically. Barnes concurs, on the basis that God is the main subject of the overall sentence. He concludes that the glory goes to Him as He alone is worthy. As I have insisted above, what is said here of ‘He alone’ must be ascribed to the Triune Godhead, and thus applies to Father, Son and Spirit equally. It may seem a quibble, and perhaps it is. But, I would maintain that we benefit greatly to remain clear that we serve and worship God; not the Father specifically, not the Son specifically and not the Spirit specifically. To raise any one of them above the other is to cease from worshipping the God Who Is.
The end, as the Wycliffe Commentary sets it, must be that God is glorified through Christ. We must look to the next section to find the Spirit brought into this, but rest assured He is entirely present in Peter’s thoughts as well as our experience. Look at 1Peter 4:14. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. He is here, which Jesus has told us is better for us as the Son has gone to prepare our place (Jn 16:7). The Spirit is not alone in being our Helper, for He is another Helper, Jesus being our first (Jn 14:16). But, these three are One. The glory is to the Father, and in being to the Father is to Son and Spirit as well. Together they act as One, each Person according to His separate part in the action, and all for this one purpose: that God in His totality may be glorified.
We are blessed to be granted a part in this. It ought to strike us as the greatest of mysteries that God should see fit to do so. How can He abide in me, a sinner? How can He find it the perfect expression of goodness to use a fallible man like myself to achieve what He could far more easily have done Himself? Why should He bother with me? The only answer is because this brings Him glory.
Lord, I am humbled yet again to consider that You choose to use me. I wonder, sometimes, how much use I am to You, and can only trust that because it is You at work in me, I am useful and not a hindrance. How full of myself I can be! How proud I am of my learning in You, only to discover that I know so little. It is well to be reminded. It is well to be challenged, sharpened, and called to task for such foolishness. But, my God, let it not be that I grow (or remain) satisfied with merest learning, for that learning cannot be said to have been learned which has not proceeded into practice. I continue to sense a call to new territories in You, if not with the clarity I would like as to just what territories. If it is no more than my own tendencies seeking further satisfaction, then cast it aside. If, on the other hand, I am indeed recognizing Your calling to more or different growth in You, then lead on, and let my awareness of Your direction be clear. I pray, as well, that as I work through this present challenge of discernment and doctrine, You will hold me and empower me to see and to say only as You will, that I may uphold Your majesty and Your Truth not only in thought and word, but in character and spirit. Let me see as You would have me to see and to speak accordingly, fearless in defense of Your Truth, humble as to any wisdom I think I may possess. I confess I am challenged, and this You know full well. I am challenged both by pride and by a general tendency towards being non-confrontational. You know me. As I do this thing, let it be in accord with the instruction of this very passage: by Your strength and Your word alone. Amen.
