2 Peter
Chapter 1
vs 1
This letter is also by Peter. Who is it to? Who knows. There are traditions, surely, but the letter doesn't say, at least not at the beginning. It does make it clear that it is to Christians though.
vs 2
Knowledge brings grace and peace in this again fairly typical Christian letter beginning.
vs 3
Who's divine power? Who called us? That first "he" is so vague that you might almost think that Peter is referring to God and Jesus as the same person. I don't know how the greek breaks it down.
God is so powerful that he can work indirectly through our own knowledge - giving us everything we need through it - life and godliness. It's not just knowledge per se, though, it is specific knowledge of him. He called us, and that call is linked up with his glory and goodness.
vs 4
These valuable promises either flow out of God's glory and goodness, his power and our knowledge, or perhaps even our calling. Perhaps when I know enough greek I'll come back and look at these verses again to see if it says what it's referring to here. At the moment my bet is on God's glory and goodness, because they are next to each other in the english and the greek.
At least the next step seems fairly clear - that through these promises we can share in God's very nature, and we have been given an escape from this self-destructing world. Seems to be talking about our eternal life, with the ideas of sharing God's nature, and escaping this world, although the exact wording is escaping the corruption, not the world per se.
Evil desires has the same root as the word "lust" in 1 Peter, which I think helps to show their evilness.
vs 5
I think Peter was getting old - making all these references back is driving me nuts. This very reason is probably the whole idea of our participation in God through his promises.
"Make every effort" is not a one-off action. It is a continual thing, like "keep on making diligently making the effort". Add goodness to faith, because virtue is the active outward component of faith. Add to goodness knowledge, because it informs our actions. Note specifically here that faith comes first, not knowledge. You've got to trust God even before you know what's going to happen, and your virtue comes out of that trust, not out of knowing what happens next.
This knowledge isn't the same as the one mentioned earlier in the chapter, although it has the same root. Those are translated "full knowledge" - this is just regular knowledge. So your "full knowledge" of God (which the lexicon states as knowledge of things ethical and divine) comes before. This knowledge (gnosis) is a general intelligene and understanding. So you can fairly say here that Peter does value intelligence that would come through teaching - the use of your mind for God.
vs 6
To knowledge add self-control, because self control is needed to stop you from being all puffed up with your knowledge. Remember that the church is combatting an early form of gnosticism, so Peter doesn't want people to think that he means "to all these add gnosis like those other gits". Gnostics were well known for not having much self-control, despite their doctrines.
To self-control, add perseverance. I guess that's so you can keep up the self-control, because it can be hard to be self-controlled all the time.
To perseverance, add godliness, that is, righteousness. So in virtue we should be doing good things, in godliness we should be doing right things. I think we can see the link between perseverance and righteousness in 1 Peter, in the idea of suffering for doing what is right - you have to be able to endure, and through your endurance continue to be righteous.
vs 7
To righteousness we should add love for other Christians. Wow, imagine if we treated other Christians with love, instead of trashtalking them because we are so good in our theology and they are so wierd and different and wrong. Instead, the word used here tells us to love our Christian fellows as if they were our brothers and sisters. Which to someone like me doesn't seem much, but in its cultural context basically means that you should be prepared to do anything for them.
And to love for our fellow Christians, add love generally. So love starts with the family of God, and works its way out into the world.
Now of course I added all that commentary, and it's not reflected in Peter's writing. His writing is little more than a list written in such a way as to make them all add together one after the other. But I think it's a good way to look at it. It's not a model of the Christian life in stages or anything - you're meant to add all of these all the time. You can't say "right, I'm up to knowledge... can't wait to get to brotherly love...".
vs 8
There's no time period between these things, they are all meant to be increasing all the time. The more we have of all of these qualities, the more effective and productive we will be. What a promise! Again we are back to the "full knowledge" of God form of knowledge here.
vs 9
Here's a classic example of simple repetition of an idea. What does it mean to be short-sighted and blind at the same time? It's not some complex theological question - it means you're so short sighted you're blind. It's just there for extra expressiveness. Peter's diagnosis for this problem is interesting - the forgetting of the cleansing of your sin. You forget what Jesus has done for you, and everything else seems to go down the toilet. And you can't even see it, because you're blind.
vs 10
Peter has a thing about our calling and election. Perhaps it's because he's a Jew, and they are the "called people". Perhaps it's because Jesus called him directly. Notice he still uses his name that Jesus gave him, Simon Peter in verse 1. In any case, verses 10 and 11 are just begging for an argument. They don't just talk about us being called, but more - that we can firm up our election! Sounds like an implication of the ability to lose your election to me. However, don't take that word "fall" to seriously. It's not a fall from grace or anything. The lexicon says "stumble", and Marshal translates it "fail". So Peter is saying that if you do all these things, they will prevent you from stumbling, or failing in your Christian life. But the nearsighted blind guy will stumble all over the place.
vs 11
Something worth striving for - a rich welcome at the gates of heaven. Count me in.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 5
vs 1
Not only is Peter an elder of the early NT church, but he's a witness to Christ's sufferings and one who will share in glory. These make him worth listening to, and are appeals to his authority.
vs 2
Wow, this one verse has a lot of advice for church leaders. If you aren't involved in church leadership because you want to, then you shouldn't be involved at all. I know it's easy sometimes to think that if someone actually wants to be involved, they probably have bad motives, and therefore it's best to have leaders who are unwilling but see the necessity of leadership. Peter says no - if you're not willing, don't do it. Makes me feel better to aspire to church leadership. God wants willing servants.
If you've ever wondered why elders don't get paid, you can read this verse and wonder a little more. The suggestion that someone could enter the church leadership for the purpose of making money implies that the positions were at least compensated, probably more than compensated. But anyway, your willingness to lead a church should be based on your desire to serve, not for any other reason.
vs 3
This is the whole idea of servant leadership. I've called them church leaders above, but we shouldn't focus on the leadership aspect, we should focus on the servant aspect. Leadership through lordship is only really applicable to God and Jesus - and even then Jesus humbled himself! Instead, we should lead by example. Practice what you preach and all that. It's not as easy as it sounds.
vs 4
One of those verses that promises some sort of reward. Now true, everyone who gets to heaven is probably given a crown that will never fade away. But I do think Peter is suggesting here that leadership positions in the church are a special honour and will be especially rewarded. No reason to be jealous though - after all, what is a crown but one more thing to put before Jesus' feet when you get there? Something worth striving for.
vs 5
What does "in the same way" link back to? It could be to Peter's authority or to the reward, but I think it most comfortably links back to a willingness to serve, an eagerness to serve, and being an example. So young people's submissiveness should be willing and eager, and they should not have an attitude of lording it over the oldies, I mean, elders.
All of you I think is inclusive, not exclusive to "all you young men". And the command about humility links to my point above, that both leaders and young men should be humble to one another. Backed up by another Proverb.
vs 6
Notice that our humility is primarily to God and because of God. In reality, whether we're a leader or a youngun, we're all equally humble before God in the first place, so there's no reason to go around having chest-beating competitions among ourselves. We will be exalted - we just need to wait for God's timing.
vs 7
In the NIV this is linked to verse 6, where I think it more comfortably starts a new idea with verse 8. In any case, it's a sister verse to verses like Philippians 4:6-7, and shows that it's ok to be anxious, and that it's expected. But instead of getting a mental complex about it, we should cast these problems before God. If we are certain of God's care for us, this should be our first response.
vs 8
The self control and awareness are directly linked to the fact that the devil prowls. These are your protection against him.
vs 9
Peter's call to resist the devil based on the suffering of our brothers elsewhere in the world is an interesting idea. When you're being tempted to something bad, do you think about the many other Christians all over the world who are undergoing sufferings of a similar nature? It's probably entirely relevant to think about mission workers or poor Christians and their sufferings the next time you're going to spend some money on something unnecessary. Not that it's all about money, but it's as good an example as any.
vs 10
For clean reading, I'd suggest that the suffering for a little while doesn't need a comma before it, and that it's linked directly with our glory in Christ rather than being linked with our restoration and strengthening etc. The only reason I say that is because otherwise it means that God, who called us to glory, will give us restoration, strength, steadfastness and firmness, but only after we've suffered a little first. It could well mean that, referring to our eternal restoration. But I think God's promise of strength through suffering is not contingient on us suffering a little bit first before he helps us. He's with us all the way.
vs 11
Amen.
vs 12
Silas was probably his amenuensis, so that doesn't necessarily mean that Silas helped him develop the ideas. But it was not uncommon for an amenuensis to do that. Anyway, does it matter? It's the word of God first, the word of Peter (and possibly Silas) second. The early church fathers didn't seem to mind Silas' involvement.
I personally would prefer if Peter had put his reason for writing at the beginning of the letter, but hey, he gives it to us at the end. And it is an encouraging letter.
vs 13
Who's that? Obviously those who got the letter first knew. Mark could be Peter's actual son, but is more likely to be Mark the author of the Gospel according to Mark. Mark wasn't an apostle remember, so the reason his Gospel was accepted was because of his link to Peter.
vs 14
Curse that kiss. Thank God for his cultural appropriateness. And to all you who aren't in Christ - you don't deserve any peace. I don't think Peter's saying that, but it sounds cool.
Chapter 5
vs 1
Not only is Peter an elder of the early NT church, but he's a witness to Christ's sufferings and one who will share in glory. These make him worth listening to, and are appeals to his authority.
vs 2
Wow, this one verse has a lot of advice for church leaders. If you aren't involved in church leadership because you want to, then you shouldn't be involved at all. I know it's easy sometimes to think that if someone actually wants to be involved, they probably have bad motives, and therefore it's best to have leaders who are unwilling but see the necessity of leadership. Peter says no - if you're not willing, don't do it. Makes me feel better to aspire to church leadership. God wants willing servants.
If you've ever wondered why elders don't get paid, you can read this verse and wonder a little more. The suggestion that someone could enter the church leadership for the purpose of making money implies that the positions were at least compensated, probably more than compensated. But anyway, your willingness to lead a church should be based on your desire to serve, not for any other reason.
vs 3
This is the whole idea of servant leadership. I've called them church leaders above, but we shouldn't focus on the leadership aspect, we should focus on the servant aspect. Leadership through lordship is only really applicable to God and Jesus - and even then Jesus humbled himself! Instead, we should lead by example. Practice what you preach and all that. It's not as easy as it sounds.
vs 4
One of those verses that promises some sort of reward. Now true, everyone who gets to heaven is probably given a crown that will never fade away. But I do think Peter is suggesting here that leadership positions in the church are a special honour and will be especially rewarded. No reason to be jealous though - after all, what is a crown but one more thing to put before Jesus' feet when you get there? Something worth striving for.
vs 5
What does "in the same way" link back to? It could be to Peter's authority or to the reward, but I think it most comfortably links back to a willingness to serve, an eagerness to serve, and being an example. So young people's submissiveness should be willing and eager, and they should not have an attitude of lording it over the oldies, I mean, elders.
All of you I think is inclusive, not exclusive to "all you young men". And the command about humility links to my point above, that both leaders and young men should be humble to one another. Backed up by another Proverb.
vs 6
Notice that our humility is primarily to God and because of God. In reality, whether we're a leader or a youngun, we're all equally humble before God in the first place, so there's no reason to go around having chest-beating competitions among ourselves. We will be exalted - we just need to wait for God's timing.
vs 7
In the NIV this is linked to verse 6, where I think it more comfortably starts a new idea with verse 8. In any case, it's a sister verse to verses like Philippians 4:6-7, and shows that it's ok to be anxious, and that it's expected. But instead of getting a mental complex about it, we should cast these problems before God. If we are certain of God's care for us, this should be our first response.
vs 8
The self control and awareness are directly linked to the fact that the devil prowls. These are your protection against him.
vs 9
Peter's call to resist the devil based on the suffering of our brothers elsewhere in the world is an interesting idea. When you're being tempted to something bad, do you think about the many other Christians all over the world who are undergoing sufferings of a similar nature? It's probably entirely relevant to think about mission workers or poor Christians and their sufferings the next time you're going to spend some money on something unnecessary. Not that it's all about money, but it's as good an example as any.
vs 10
For clean reading, I'd suggest that the suffering for a little while doesn't need a comma before it, and that it's linked directly with our glory in Christ rather than being linked with our restoration and strengthening etc. The only reason I say that is because otherwise it means that God, who called us to glory, will give us restoration, strength, steadfastness and firmness, but only after we've suffered a little first. It could well mean that, referring to our eternal restoration. But I think God's promise of strength through suffering is not contingient on us suffering a little bit first before he helps us. He's with us all the way.
vs 11
Amen.
vs 12
Silas was probably his amenuensis, so that doesn't necessarily mean that Silas helped him develop the ideas. But it was not uncommon for an amenuensis to do that. Anyway, does it matter? It's the word of God first, the word of Peter (and possibly Silas) second. The early church fathers didn't seem to mind Silas' involvement.
I personally would prefer if Peter had put his reason for writing at the beginning of the letter, but hey, he gives it to us at the end. And it is an encouraging letter.
vs 13
Who's that? Obviously those who got the letter first knew. Mark could be Peter's actual son, but is more likely to be Mark the author of the Gospel according to Mark. Mark wasn't an apostle remember, so the reason his Gospel was accepted was because of his link to Peter.
vs 14
Curse that kiss. Thank God for his cultural appropriateness. And to all you who aren't in Christ - you don't deserve any peace. I don't think Peter's saying that, but it sounds cool.
Monday, August 07, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 4
vs 11
What is this saying? I think it's saying that when you're doing things, you shouldn't even try to do them in your own strength. If it's speaking, speak the very words of God or none at all. If it's serving (which is basically anything), only do it with the strength God provides, not your own strength.
I might be reading that too strongly. But I wonder what our lives and ministries would look like if we did that? Because to him be the power and the glory.
vs 12
But instead, be surprised that you live in the west where these sufferings aren't happening? Perhaps we should be surprised.
vs 13
So our rejoicing starts when we are suffering, and becomes overflowing joy when he is revealed! So our joy towards Christ's final revelation of himself will be indexed to how much suffering we take for him. That makes perfect sense to me.
vs 14
We definitely do not take this promise seriously. Look at the lives of the apostles and the early church - they really believed this. To them, blessings from God and the spirit of the glory and God resting on them was obviously far more valuable to them than their comfort. The book of Acts so obviously points that out. Shame on us.
vs 15
Of course Christians shouldn't be doing these things - even meddling, which once again tells me that Christians shouldn't be going around meddling in other people's affairs. Ok, I don't mean you should never get involved in people's affairs, but people shouldn't feel like you're meddling. The greek word seems to mean "don't try and take authority in other people's affairs" because it comes from the words "bishop" and "belonging to another". I can relate to that.
vs 16
Some people think that this is showing that the term "Christian" was first a derogatory term. That has been questioned. The meat of the verse is to not be ashamed of Christ. Remember that the punishment for being Christian was just that - a punishment! It was an illegal act, so it would have been easy to feel ashamed about. Our society is a little different, but we still have a lot to feel ashamed about - the Crusades, paedophile priests, televangelists - we share our blessed name with a bunch of shameful people. But we should not be ashamed. Better to be a Christian by far.
vs 17
This verse is not about some mystical or spiritual thing primarily. It is directly in the context of suffering in the last few verses. The judgement that Peter is talking about is the winnowing that is taking place through suffering. This may have a spiritual element, but rest assured that all people, living and dead, will still need to come before the judgement seat of Christ. This is not an absolution of judgement for Christians.
So Peter is in effect saying "If your present sufferings are akin to the judgement of the Christian (ouch), then what's it going to be like for non-Christians?"
vs 18
Peter's quote from Proverbs then builds on this idea, reminding us that if our very salvation seems hard to us now, then what is lack of salvation going to be like for sinners? I think this is the proper sense in which Peter is using this quote - because really, if you look at the actual quote in Proverbs, it's much more about earthly reward than heavenly reward. Peter might be stretching it to take a heavenly meaning, and hence he changes the words like that.
However, if Peter is talking about the earthly kingdom, you can't take this verse to say that "bad people doing bad things are always feeling empty and down and missing something". You've always got to read Proverbs with a good dose of Ecclesiastes or Job. Because we all know from our own experiences that there are people who are happy with their terribly evil lives, and that you can live your whole life as a bastard and die happy. We like to think that these people have some inner Augustinian void in them that needs God - and they do - but we also like to think that this makes them all miserable and they'll be ready for the gospel because of it. Nup. Some of them live it up till the day they die - and only on their deathbed (or even after) do they realise what an idiot they've been.
vs 19
Peter's advice for those who are suffering. "Continue to do good" means "keep doing what's making you suffer" - painful advice.
Chapter 4
vs 11
What is this saying? I think it's saying that when you're doing things, you shouldn't even try to do them in your own strength. If it's speaking, speak the very words of God or none at all. If it's serving (which is basically anything), only do it with the strength God provides, not your own strength.
I might be reading that too strongly. But I wonder what our lives and ministries would look like if we did that? Because to him be the power and the glory.
vs 12
But instead, be surprised that you live in the west where these sufferings aren't happening? Perhaps we should be surprised.
vs 13
So our rejoicing starts when we are suffering, and becomes overflowing joy when he is revealed! So our joy towards Christ's final revelation of himself will be indexed to how much suffering we take for him. That makes perfect sense to me.
vs 14
We definitely do not take this promise seriously. Look at the lives of the apostles and the early church - they really believed this. To them, blessings from God and the spirit of the glory and God resting on them was obviously far more valuable to them than their comfort. The book of Acts so obviously points that out. Shame on us.
vs 15
Of course Christians shouldn't be doing these things - even meddling, which once again tells me that Christians shouldn't be going around meddling in other people's affairs. Ok, I don't mean you should never get involved in people's affairs, but people shouldn't feel like you're meddling. The greek word seems to mean "don't try and take authority in other people's affairs" because it comes from the words "bishop" and "belonging to another". I can relate to that.
vs 16
Some people think that this is showing that the term "Christian" was first a derogatory term. That has been questioned. The meat of the verse is to not be ashamed of Christ. Remember that the punishment for being Christian was just that - a punishment! It was an illegal act, so it would have been easy to feel ashamed about. Our society is a little different, but we still have a lot to feel ashamed about - the Crusades, paedophile priests, televangelists - we share our blessed name with a bunch of shameful people. But we should not be ashamed. Better to be a Christian by far.
vs 17
This verse is not about some mystical or spiritual thing primarily. It is directly in the context of suffering in the last few verses. The judgement that Peter is talking about is the winnowing that is taking place through suffering. This may have a spiritual element, but rest assured that all people, living and dead, will still need to come before the judgement seat of Christ. This is not an absolution of judgement for Christians.
So Peter is in effect saying "If your present sufferings are akin to the judgement of the Christian (ouch), then what's it going to be like for non-Christians?"
vs 18
Peter's quote from Proverbs then builds on this idea, reminding us that if our very salvation seems hard to us now, then what is lack of salvation going to be like for sinners? I think this is the proper sense in which Peter is using this quote - because really, if you look at the actual quote in Proverbs, it's much more about earthly reward than heavenly reward. Peter might be stretching it to take a heavenly meaning, and hence he changes the words like that.
However, if Peter is talking about the earthly kingdom, you can't take this verse to say that "bad people doing bad things are always feeling empty and down and missing something". You've always got to read Proverbs with a good dose of Ecclesiastes or Job. Because we all know from our own experiences that there are people who are happy with their terribly evil lives, and that you can live your whole life as a bastard and die happy. We like to think that these people have some inner Augustinian void in them that needs God - and they do - but we also like to think that this makes them all miserable and they'll be ready for the gospel because of it. Nup. Some of them live it up till the day they die - and only on their deathbed (or even after) do they realise what an idiot they've been.
vs 19
Peter's advice for those who are suffering. "Continue to do good" means "keep doing what's making you suffer" - painful advice.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 4
vs 1
One of the many comments in the epistles that suggest the ability to be through with sin. I won't repeat my comments about 1 Peter 1:14. Sufficed to say that Peter intimates that there is a link between your physical suffering and your ability to ward off sin. This shouldn't be thought of as contradictory to Paul's statement in Colossians about the heretics (proto-gnostics?) who tried to use harsh treatment of the body to distract them from sensual indulgence. Peter is not suggesting that you should flagellate yourself or anything. I can prove it, because he says to have Jesus' attitude, which was not one of self-harm - he let other people harm him.
vs 2
The "he" here is not Christ - it's a hypothetical "he", because the wording suggests that there was a time beforehand where the "he" did live for evil human desires, and of course Christ never did that.
Besides that wordplay, it's worth noting that this is a continuance of Peter's thought on suffering here - that the result of persecution and suffering is a focus on the will of God, to the exclusion of evil desires. Almost makes you wish you could buy suffering-in-a-can... almost.
vs 3
Remember, Peter is talking to a whole bunch of Christians here, so when he says "enough time", he really means "any time at all spent living that life is too much". For people as dumb as me, here's what these words mean:
Debauchery: the greek word means a whole bunch of bad things - basically it's the overindulgence of sensual desires.
Carousing: the word literally means drinking in greek, but considering that "drunkenness" comes just before it, I think an adequate modern translation would be "partying" or perhaps "excessive merrymaking".
Lust: of course does not limit to physical - a lust is an emotional desire of any sort.
vs 4
Yes, here is yet more evidence that Christians need to be different from the mob, and it is that difference that will cause the abuse. It's not because we harass them constantly telling them that drinking = hell for all eternity. It's because we just don't do it - we let their stupid actions judge themselves. Yes, that includes partying. Parties are stupid. Now I have biblical proof. Thank you Peter ;)
vs 5
As I said above, but now it's not just their stupid actions that will make them feel judged - it's Jesus who will judge them.
vs 6
There was still a bit of confusion in the churches about what happened to dead people. (1 &2 Thessalonians are good examples). Remember, the greeks found the whole concept of resurrection a bit difficult to deal with. There was also widespread (although at this time waning) belief that Jesus was really coming back "any day now".
So I don't think that Peter is saying that those who are dead are being preached to. Rather I think he's talking about those who were preached to, and have since died. Makes much more sense that way. Regarding the being judged according to the body but living according to the spirit... well... I'm not sure there. Whatever it is, it's not any sort of gnostic dualism. If it were, there'd be no point judging the body - it would just be automatically guilty.
vs 7
Here's the end of the world like I was saying before. How near is it? Near enough, says Peter. Our response to the end of the world is to pray - and to make sure we can, we need to be clear-minded and self-controlled. If you've ever wondered why prayer is so hard, it's because prayer requires discipline.
vs 8
I always think it's worthwhile acknowledging how much the epistles and even Jesus focus on the necessity for Christians to love one another. I'm not trying to take away from the need for world mission, but I think non-Christians would be heavily impacted if they saw us loving one another a whole lot more. Peter expands on this now.
vs 9
Does this need explanation?
vs 10
The serving of others has been quite deep on my heart recently. I think if we had slaves we would be a whole lot more aware of what this means. Slaves have to put other people before themselves out of necessity. We don't have that kind of role model in our world, nothing like what they had then.
The other thing we can learn from this verse is that God's grace takes various forms. It's not just about salvation. All those things that Christians do for each other, and for the rest of the world, are various forms that God's grace can take. I think we look too much to God's salvation, and perhaps too little at all the other blessings he has given us. There's a lot of them.
Chapter 4
vs 1
One of the many comments in the epistles that suggest the ability to be through with sin. I won't repeat my comments about 1 Peter 1:14. Sufficed to say that Peter intimates that there is a link between your physical suffering and your ability to ward off sin. This shouldn't be thought of as contradictory to Paul's statement in Colossians about the heretics (proto-gnostics?) who tried to use harsh treatment of the body to distract them from sensual indulgence. Peter is not suggesting that you should flagellate yourself or anything. I can prove it, because he says to have Jesus' attitude, which was not one of self-harm - he let other people harm him.
vs 2
The "he" here is not Christ - it's a hypothetical "he", because the wording suggests that there was a time beforehand where the "he" did live for evil human desires, and of course Christ never did that.
Besides that wordplay, it's worth noting that this is a continuance of Peter's thought on suffering here - that the result of persecution and suffering is a focus on the will of God, to the exclusion of evil desires. Almost makes you wish you could buy suffering-in-a-can... almost.
vs 3
Remember, Peter is talking to a whole bunch of Christians here, so when he says "enough time", he really means "any time at all spent living that life is too much". For people as dumb as me, here's what these words mean:
Debauchery: the greek word means a whole bunch of bad things - basically it's the overindulgence of sensual desires.
Carousing: the word literally means drinking in greek, but considering that "drunkenness" comes just before it, I think an adequate modern translation would be "partying" or perhaps "excessive merrymaking".
Lust: of course does not limit to physical - a lust is an emotional desire of any sort.
vs 4
Yes, here is yet more evidence that Christians need to be different from the mob, and it is that difference that will cause the abuse. It's not because we harass them constantly telling them that drinking = hell for all eternity. It's because we just don't do it - we let their stupid actions judge themselves. Yes, that includes partying. Parties are stupid. Now I have biblical proof. Thank you Peter ;)
vs 5
As I said above, but now it's not just their stupid actions that will make them feel judged - it's Jesus who will judge them.
vs 6
There was still a bit of confusion in the churches about what happened to dead people. (1 &2 Thessalonians are good examples). Remember, the greeks found the whole concept of resurrection a bit difficult to deal with. There was also widespread (although at this time waning) belief that Jesus was really coming back "any day now".
So I don't think that Peter is saying that those who are dead are being preached to. Rather I think he's talking about those who were preached to, and have since died. Makes much more sense that way. Regarding the being judged according to the body but living according to the spirit... well... I'm not sure there. Whatever it is, it's not any sort of gnostic dualism. If it were, there'd be no point judging the body - it would just be automatically guilty.
vs 7
Here's the end of the world like I was saying before. How near is it? Near enough, says Peter. Our response to the end of the world is to pray - and to make sure we can, we need to be clear-minded and self-controlled. If you've ever wondered why prayer is so hard, it's because prayer requires discipline.
vs 8
I always think it's worthwhile acknowledging how much the epistles and even Jesus focus on the necessity for Christians to love one another. I'm not trying to take away from the need for world mission, but I think non-Christians would be heavily impacted if they saw us loving one another a whole lot more. Peter expands on this now.
vs 9
Does this need explanation?
vs 10
The serving of others has been quite deep on my heart recently. I think if we had slaves we would be a whole lot more aware of what this means. Slaves have to put other people before themselves out of necessity. We don't have that kind of role model in our world, nothing like what they had then.
The other thing we can learn from this verse is that God's grace takes various forms. It's not just about salvation. All those things that Christians do for each other, and for the rest of the world, are various forms that God's grace can take. I think we look too much to God's salvation, and perhaps too little at all the other blessings he has given us. There's a lot of them.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 3
vs 13
People don't generally go around kneecapping those who help poor people. Not to say that it doesn't happen. One of the critics of the early Christians said that he hated them for "stealing our poor people" - the suggestion being that the Christians were helping all the poor people before the majority religion had the chance (which they weren't using, by the way).
vs 14
That aside, even if we suffer, it's still a blessing, because we are sharing in the suffering of Christ. We are not called to fear suffering, because we're the ones who get to heaven at the end of it all. If we fear anything, it should be that these people won't get there.
Interesting sidenote - next time someone goes off about the Catholics and the Illuminati and the orbital mind control lasers, quote Isaiah 8:12 at them. I'm certainly saving it up in my arsenal, because I come across a good number of wierdos in churches I go to.
vs 15
Christ should be Lord. If you fear something, then your fear is putting that thing in Christ's place.
Interesting that our preparedness for answering people about our faith (hope) is in this context of not fearing, and putting Christ as Lord. To use the nationhood example again, it's the equivalent of stitching an American flag to your backpack whilst touring through the Middle East. People might not like it, but you're showing where your allegience lies. And when you do that, you'd better be prepared to have an answer for it! But unlike an American, we should do this with gentleness and respect :) <---- Note the smiley face. I am just making fun.
vs 16
Eventually, even as we defend our allegience to Christ, people will realise that their slander is pretty poor, and they'll feel ashamed. But that is contingent on our consciences clear - if we're being brutal and arrogant, then we're no better than themm, and they'll feel justified in their slander.
vs 17
A repetition of the betterment of suffering for doing good than for doing evil. This shows the importance to Peter of this idea - as my college lecturer said, they didn't have underlining or bold type on their parchments. If you wanted to draw attention to something, you repeated it over and over again.
He also brings into play God's will in our suffering. So don't go jumping out in front of cars for doing good. If you're doing good, suffering will come, you don't need to attract it.
vs 18
I think what Peter is saying here is that if we look at Christ's example, he died not because he was obnoxious or because he was looking for it, but because it was going to bring us to God. So I think that bit is a comparison to the previous idea about God's will for suffering, and once again showing us to use Christ's example in this.
As for the other half of verse 18...
vs 19-20
Wtf? I don't mean to make fun of the 'simple reading' argument, but this whole thing about Jesus' spirit ministering to "the spirits in prison" and what that has to do with Noah - there's just no such thing as a simple reading to that. Yes, there is an 'uninformed reading' of it, but I just don't think there's a simple answer to whatever this means. Sure, we know the story of Noah, but who knows what that has to do with the "spirits in prison"?
I'll give you what one commentator says: basically, between the time that Christ died and was resurrected, he went in spirit form down to hell - not to suffer for our sins - and while there he preached to all the evil spirits about how he had fixed the problem of sin, and rubbed their noses in it. The reason this is tied up with Noah is because that's when people were just doing evil all the time, and that was because the devils were tempting them to do it. I think that's mega-speculation, personally. But I don't have a better interpretation than that.
vs 21
Back to reality, and we're talking about baptism. Note that it's not baptism that saves you - washing dirt off your body doesn't do anything except keep you clean. It's the pledge of a good conscience toward God (which is what your baptism means) through Jesus Christ's resurrection that saves you!
vs 22
That same Jesus that saved us is up there in heaven commanding about powers, authorities and angels. That's not meant to make us feel good because he's still got something to do ("oh, how nice, he's found a hobby") - it's meant to make us feel safe because he's got everything under his control.
Chapter 3
vs 13
People don't generally go around kneecapping those who help poor people. Not to say that it doesn't happen. One of the critics of the early Christians said that he hated them for "stealing our poor people" - the suggestion being that the Christians were helping all the poor people before the majority religion had the chance (which they weren't using, by the way).
vs 14
That aside, even if we suffer, it's still a blessing, because we are sharing in the suffering of Christ. We are not called to fear suffering, because we're the ones who get to heaven at the end of it all. If we fear anything, it should be that these people won't get there.
Interesting sidenote - next time someone goes off about the Catholics and the Illuminati and the orbital mind control lasers, quote Isaiah 8:12 at them. I'm certainly saving it up in my arsenal, because I come across a good number of wierdos in churches I go to.
vs 15
Christ should be Lord. If you fear something, then your fear is putting that thing in Christ's place.
Interesting that our preparedness for answering people about our faith (hope) is in this context of not fearing, and putting Christ as Lord. To use the nationhood example again, it's the equivalent of stitching an American flag to your backpack whilst touring through the Middle East. People might not like it, but you're showing where your allegience lies. And when you do that, you'd better be prepared to have an answer for it! But unlike an American, we should do this with gentleness and respect :) <---- Note the smiley face. I am just making fun.
vs 16
Eventually, even as we defend our allegience to Christ, people will realise that their slander is pretty poor, and they'll feel ashamed. But that is contingent on our consciences clear - if we're being brutal and arrogant, then we're no better than themm, and they'll feel justified in their slander.
vs 17
A repetition of the betterment of suffering for doing good than for doing evil. This shows the importance to Peter of this idea - as my college lecturer said, they didn't have underlining or bold type on their parchments. If you wanted to draw attention to something, you repeated it over and over again.
He also brings into play God's will in our suffering. So don't go jumping out in front of cars for doing good. If you're doing good, suffering will come, you don't need to attract it.
vs 18
I think what Peter is saying here is that if we look at Christ's example, he died not because he was obnoxious or because he was looking for it, but because it was going to bring us to God. So I think that bit is a comparison to the previous idea about God's will for suffering, and once again showing us to use Christ's example in this.
As for the other half of verse 18...
vs 19-20
Wtf? I don't mean to make fun of the 'simple reading' argument, but this whole thing about Jesus' spirit ministering to "the spirits in prison" and what that has to do with Noah - there's just no such thing as a simple reading to that. Yes, there is an 'uninformed reading' of it, but I just don't think there's a simple answer to whatever this means. Sure, we know the story of Noah, but who knows what that has to do with the "spirits in prison"?
I'll give you what one commentator says: basically, between the time that Christ died and was resurrected, he went in spirit form down to hell - not to suffer for our sins - and while there he preached to all the evil spirits about how he had fixed the problem of sin, and rubbed their noses in it. The reason this is tied up with Noah is because that's when people were just doing evil all the time, and that was because the devils were tempting them to do it. I think that's mega-speculation, personally. But I don't have a better interpretation than that.
vs 21
Back to reality, and we're talking about baptism. Note that it's not baptism that saves you - washing dirt off your body doesn't do anything except keep you clean. It's the pledge of a good conscience toward God (which is what your baptism means) through Jesus Christ's resurrection that saves you!
vs 22
That same Jesus that saved us is up there in heaven commanding about powers, authorities and angels. That's not meant to make us feel good because he's still got something to do ("oh, how nice, he's found a hobby") - it's meant to make us feel safe because he's got everything under his control.
Friday, August 04, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 3
vs 1
This isn't a good verse to bandy about trying to say women should submit to their husbands. It's very specific - firstly, it's comparing women submitting to husbands as to a slave submitting to unjust punishment. Remember, women weren't exactly the pinnacle of ancient civilisations, so husbands would regularly mistreat their wives. Secondly, this verse's particular purpose is regarding wives whose husbands aren't Christian. Again, the focus is on our good lives being a witness to the unsaved.
vs 2
This verse just focuses on what it is about that life which is appealing, or at least obvious to the outside world (husband in this case).
vs 3
No, this is not saying that women shouldn't be pretty. It's not saying that you shouldn't wear makeup or braid your hair. If you think that, you need to go and do a BA in logic. What it is saying is that, if your outward appearance is all that attracts people to you, because you wear pretty clothes but you're a total bitch, then that's not a Christian attitude.
Prettiness and sexiness are temporary - they will wear with age I can assure you.
vs 4
Instead, your attractiveness should come from a quiet and gentle spirit. It's like in a White Wolf game - you've got points in appearance, but also points in charisma. Your outward appearance will help you right up to the point you open your mouth, or do an activity, or interact with people. Then it's pretty useless. Human's lives aren't spent sitting on a pedestal for people to stare at - they are seen in reality. And even the prettiest girl in the world's looks becomes ho-hum when you get to know her, because it's just the same-old same-old. But inner beauty never gets old, and God values it.
vs 5
If you look at the holy women of the past, supposedly they did all this too. And there are some good examples. Ruth's attitude to her mother-in-law and to Boaz is an attractive attitude. It's the same with Esther. Now look here - both of them were bombshells! I can prove this with an etch-a-sketch. Boaz sees Ruth in the field and goes "Woah baby!". Xerxes has his pick of all the prettiest virgins in the land, and picks Esther. But that lasts long enough to get them to the stage of first conversation - then Boaz likes the look of Ruth's character, and Esther keeps Xerxes happy by serving his needs.
vs 6
But of course Peter goes for the big daddy Abraham and his wife Sarah for his example. She was also a babe (even when she was old and crusty, the king if Egypt wants her). Notice that Peter says here "Don't give way to fear" - just another reminder that he's talking to women whose husbands are not believers. Because Christian husbands shouldn't give their wives anything to fear.
vs 7
Now if you read this verse and see the word 'considerate', you're missing its meaning. It's meaning comes in the words "in the same way". Husbands should submit to the needs of their wives out of consideration for them.
Yes, women are the weaker sex. It's a fact. I say this because basically every society ever built, even the Jewish and Christian societies of history, have relegated women. This is not in my opinion a theological statement - it is a practical one. If women were the stronger sex, then they'd have dominated more civilisations than they did. You can make all the arguments about women as power-behind-the-throne etc, but I make the same argument about humans being more powerful than vampires. Sure, vampires get all the funky powers and are basically immortal - but they have to hide who they are, and live in fear of the sun and of fire wielded by humans. Same thing for women - they might be smarter, more caring, higher pain tolerance, stronger and better people than men in many ways - but men have historically been dominant. That doesn't make it right or even biblically theological - but it's how it's been. And so Peter uses it here.
Finally, I don't know what he means by hindering prayers. The most logical meaning would be that "your" is plural, and it hinders the prayers of the couple together. But if the "your" is singular, I guess it's a conscience thing for treating your wife badly, or that God doesn't hear the prayers of bad husbands...
vs 8
This call is to harmony within the church! When you look at it with verse 9, it makes you wonder what sort of churches these people were attending.
vs 9
Oh, wait, they're our churches. We've got to learn that one of the primary witnesses we have to the outside world is how we treat our fellow Christians. People will know we are Christian when they see how we treat each other, if we're doing it right. We were actually called to harmony, and it's a means of blessing for us. Certainly the opposite of harmony is not a blessing in any church.
vs 10-11
Psalm 34 being quoted. It's showing where the promise of blessing comes from. Firstly for keeping your mouth from evil, then for seeking peace (or harmony).
vs 12
There's another comment about prayers not being heard - could link to the earlier vs 7? Isn't it interesting seeing Peter expound the Bible. First he establishes his point by preaching it with his own apostolic authority. Then he uses the Bible to show that he's not talking crap - to show that his views line up with God's view.
I've always thought that this was a key to reaching people with the Bible today. Post-modernists are all about tolerating and enjoying other people's ideas on how stuff works. The only reason they ignore the Bible is because they are also anti-institutional. But if we are out there as Christians saying "Hey, why don't we try doing things this way?" then people are more likely to listen to it because it's an alternate point of view. I'm not saying we necessarily hide that it's from the Bible, but if that is the stumbling block, then use the Bible without using it, if you know what I mean. Of course, this means we've got to know what it says, and we've got to be able to tell others what it says without quoting chapter and verse. And that, my friends, is called theology. Note its practical usefulness!
Chapter 3
vs 1
This isn't a good verse to bandy about trying to say women should submit to their husbands. It's very specific - firstly, it's comparing women submitting to husbands as to a slave submitting to unjust punishment. Remember, women weren't exactly the pinnacle of ancient civilisations, so husbands would regularly mistreat their wives. Secondly, this verse's particular purpose is regarding wives whose husbands aren't Christian. Again, the focus is on our good lives being a witness to the unsaved.
vs 2
This verse just focuses on what it is about that life which is appealing, or at least obvious to the outside world (husband in this case).
vs 3
No, this is not saying that women shouldn't be pretty. It's not saying that you shouldn't wear makeup or braid your hair. If you think that, you need to go and do a BA in logic. What it is saying is that, if your outward appearance is all that attracts people to you, because you wear pretty clothes but you're a total bitch, then that's not a Christian attitude.
Prettiness and sexiness are temporary - they will wear with age I can assure you.
vs 4
Instead, your attractiveness should come from a quiet and gentle spirit. It's like in a White Wolf game - you've got points in appearance, but also points in charisma. Your outward appearance will help you right up to the point you open your mouth, or do an activity, or interact with people. Then it's pretty useless. Human's lives aren't spent sitting on a pedestal for people to stare at - they are seen in reality. And even the prettiest girl in the world's looks becomes ho-hum when you get to know her, because it's just the same-old same-old. But inner beauty never gets old, and God values it.
vs 5
If you look at the holy women of the past, supposedly they did all this too. And there are some good examples. Ruth's attitude to her mother-in-law and to Boaz is an attractive attitude. It's the same with Esther. Now look here - both of them were bombshells! I can prove this with an etch-a-sketch. Boaz sees Ruth in the field and goes "Woah baby!". Xerxes has his pick of all the prettiest virgins in the land, and picks Esther. But that lasts long enough to get them to the stage of first conversation - then Boaz likes the look of Ruth's character, and Esther keeps Xerxes happy by serving his needs.
vs 6
But of course Peter goes for the big daddy Abraham and his wife Sarah for his example. She was also a babe (even when she was old and crusty, the king if Egypt wants her). Notice that Peter says here "Don't give way to fear" - just another reminder that he's talking to women whose husbands are not believers. Because Christian husbands shouldn't give their wives anything to fear.
vs 7
Now if you read this verse and see the word 'considerate', you're missing its meaning. It's meaning comes in the words "in the same way". Husbands should submit to the needs of their wives out of consideration for them.
Yes, women are the weaker sex. It's a fact. I say this because basically every society ever built, even the Jewish and Christian societies of history, have relegated women. This is not in my opinion a theological statement - it is a practical one. If women were the stronger sex, then they'd have dominated more civilisations than they did. You can make all the arguments about women as power-behind-the-throne etc, but I make the same argument about humans being more powerful than vampires. Sure, vampires get all the funky powers and are basically immortal - but they have to hide who they are, and live in fear of the sun and of fire wielded by humans. Same thing for women - they might be smarter, more caring, higher pain tolerance, stronger and better people than men in many ways - but men have historically been dominant. That doesn't make it right or even biblically theological - but it's how it's been. And so Peter uses it here.
Finally, I don't know what he means by hindering prayers. The most logical meaning would be that "your" is plural, and it hinders the prayers of the couple together. But if the "your" is singular, I guess it's a conscience thing for treating your wife badly, or that God doesn't hear the prayers of bad husbands...
vs 8
This call is to harmony within the church! When you look at it with verse 9, it makes you wonder what sort of churches these people were attending.
vs 9
Oh, wait, they're our churches. We've got to learn that one of the primary witnesses we have to the outside world is how we treat our fellow Christians. People will know we are Christian when they see how we treat each other, if we're doing it right. We were actually called to harmony, and it's a means of blessing for us. Certainly the opposite of harmony is not a blessing in any church.
vs 10-11
Psalm 34 being quoted. It's showing where the promise of blessing comes from. Firstly for keeping your mouth from evil, then for seeking peace (or harmony).
vs 12
There's another comment about prayers not being heard - could link to the earlier vs 7? Isn't it interesting seeing Peter expound the Bible. First he establishes his point by preaching it with his own apostolic authority. Then he uses the Bible to show that he's not talking crap - to show that his views line up with God's view.
I've always thought that this was a key to reaching people with the Bible today. Post-modernists are all about tolerating and enjoying other people's ideas on how stuff works. The only reason they ignore the Bible is because they are also anti-institutional. But if we are out there as Christians saying "Hey, why don't we try doing things this way?" then people are more likely to listen to it because it's an alternate point of view. I'm not saying we necessarily hide that it's from the Bible, but if that is the stumbling block, then use the Bible without using it, if you know what I mean. Of course, this means we've got to know what it says, and we've got to be able to tell others what it says without quoting chapter and verse. And that, my friends, is called theology. Note its practical usefulness!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 2
vs 13-14
I don't know that we have much trouble submitting ourselves to authority these days as a rule. If anything we use secular laws too much (in lawsuits against each other, for example). But it does mean obeying them even in things we don't agree with (that aren't contrary to God's law) like speed limits. I know not everyone believes that the speed limits are correctly set, for example, but you should still follow them. Thankfully, in our country you can lobby the government for them to change stuff without threats of death (usually).
vs 15
God has made this the way it works - Christians live good lives, and ignorant and foolish men are silenced. Obviously we aren't doing enough then, because there's still a hell of a lot of ignorant and foolish men I can hear!
vs 16
Yes, as Christians we have freedom in Christ. But we're not meant to use that freedom to do bad stuff to each other or to anyone or against God. We are servants of God willingly, so we should live the life we've chosen.
vs 17
Peter's three choices are interesting - God is obvious, the king he has just mentioned, but right up there with these is the family of believers. Very much an echo of Galatians 6:10 (even though Paul wrote that).
vs 18
This is a hard lesson. Of course, we don't have slavery anymore, no matter how hard our politicians try and enforce it with draconian workplace agreement laws. So for us this verse doesn't mean if you're in a bad situation stick to it no matter what (which is what a slave had to do anyway). It means don't let your witness be compromised by idiots. your witness is more important than your work - so if you don't think you can act in a Christian attitude towards your boss because he's a bastard, then thinking about leaving the job is a reasonable option. Of course, praying to God for the strength of his spirit is another option.
vs 19
This is why we are to do good even when being treated badly - because it is commendable. People will notice it eventually. But it's only because of your realisation that God exists and your desire to serve him that it is commendable.
vs 20
Christians shouldn't be beaten for doing wrong. They might be beaten under the pretence of doing wrong, but really because of an intolerance of their Christianity. If you do something wrong, you do deserve the punishment. But if you are punished for your acknolwedgement of Christ, then you're commended.
vs 21
And we do it this way because it's how Christ did it. Now about here I guess I should say that, unlike Jesus, we probably shouldn't go around seeking out beatings and punishment for doing good. But if we're really doing good and it's so noticeable that people are getting edgy about it, then they'll react with punishment. This is how it worked in the early church, before people started flinging themselves at the Romans saying "Martyr me, please!".
vs 22
Another Isaiah quote, showing Peter using the OT to prove stuff about Jesus.
vs 23
We will not be judged justly down here, because it's a fallen world. But we will be judged justly in heaven. And since that's where we are to spend eternity, since that is our nation, probably better to seek justice there.
vs 24
All this is paraphrasing of Isaiah. Makes me feel better for paraphrasing the Bible in my preaching. But notice that Peter doesn't say Christ died for us so that we might go to heaven - he died for us so that we might live for righteousness. There is an expectation of us. Not necessary for salvation, but it was one of the things God planned for out of this sacrifice. This shouldn't make us feel guilty, by the way - just because Christ died for this purpose doesn't mean that we should try to make it happen, self-fufilling-prophecy style. This should be an encouragement for us, because it means the power of the cross, which is the power to save us, is also the same power which is designed to help us live lives of righteousness. Hooray!
vs 25
Once we were astray, but now we've come back. I don't think this verse means that the Asian church apostasised and then they've come back to Christ. I think it only means that as non-Christians we are astray from God.
Chapter 2
vs 13-14
I don't know that we have much trouble submitting ourselves to authority these days as a rule. If anything we use secular laws too much (in lawsuits against each other, for example). But it does mean obeying them even in things we don't agree with (that aren't contrary to God's law) like speed limits. I know not everyone believes that the speed limits are correctly set, for example, but you should still follow them. Thankfully, in our country you can lobby the government for them to change stuff without threats of death (usually).
vs 15
God has made this the way it works - Christians live good lives, and ignorant and foolish men are silenced. Obviously we aren't doing enough then, because there's still a hell of a lot of ignorant and foolish men I can hear!
vs 16
Yes, as Christians we have freedom in Christ. But we're not meant to use that freedom to do bad stuff to each other or to anyone or against God. We are servants of God willingly, so we should live the life we've chosen.
vs 17
Peter's three choices are interesting - God is obvious, the king he has just mentioned, but right up there with these is the family of believers. Very much an echo of Galatians 6:10 (even though Paul wrote that).
vs 18
This is a hard lesson. Of course, we don't have slavery anymore, no matter how hard our politicians try and enforce it with draconian workplace agreement laws. So for us this verse doesn't mean if you're in a bad situation stick to it no matter what (which is what a slave had to do anyway). It means don't let your witness be compromised by idiots. your witness is more important than your work - so if you don't think you can act in a Christian attitude towards your boss because he's a bastard, then thinking about leaving the job is a reasonable option. Of course, praying to God for the strength of his spirit is another option.
vs 19
This is why we are to do good even when being treated badly - because it is commendable. People will notice it eventually. But it's only because of your realisation that God exists and your desire to serve him that it is commendable.
vs 20
Christians shouldn't be beaten for doing wrong. They might be beaten under the pretence of doing wrong, but really because of an intolerance of their Christianity. If you do something wrong, you do deserve the punishment. But if you are punished for your acknolwedgement of Christ, then you're commended.
vs 21
And we do it this way because it's how Christ did it. Now about here I guess I should say that, unlike Jesus, we probably shouldn't go around seeking out beatings and punishment for doing good. But if we're really doing good and it's so noticeable that people are getting edgy about it, then they'll react with punishment. This is how it worked in the early church, before people started flinging themselves at the Romans saying "Martyr me, please!".
vs 22
Another Isaiah quote, showing Peter using the OT to prove stuff about Jesus.
vs 23
We will not be judged justly down here, because it's a fallen world. But we will be judged justly in heaven. And since that's where we are to spend eternity, since that is our nation, probably better to seek justice there.
vs 24
All this is paraphrasing of Isaiah. Makes me feel better for paraphrasing the Bible in my preaching. But notice that Peter doesn't say Christ died for us so that we might go to heaven - he died for us so that we might live for righteousness. There is an expectation of us. Not necessary for salvation, but it was one of the things God planned for out of this sacrifice. This shouldn't make us feel guilty, by the way - just because Christ died for this purpose doesn't mean that we should try to make it happen, self-fufilling-prophecy style. This should be an encouragement for us, because it means the power of the cross, which is the power to save us, is also the same power which is designed to help us live lives of righteousness. Hooray!
vs 25
Once we were astray, but now we've come back. I don't think this verse means that the Asian church apostasised and then they've come back to Christ. I think it only means that as non-Christians we are astray from God.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 2
vs 1
Another therefore. So since you are born of an imperishable seed, you should get rid of all these things that suggest your birth to a perishable one. Interesting that Peter picks a list of sins which is entirely focused on the trashing of personal relationships - very much linked with loving your brothers I think (1:22).
vs 2
This verse could suggest that Peter considers this letter to be to those new in the faith, which shows just how quickly coming to faith meant suffering persecution back then. In any case, the pure spiritual milk is most probably not the Scriptures (but that's instantly what we think it is) - to my reading, it is your relationship with Jesus, as I think this idea links back to 1:7-9. But that's just me.
vs 3
Sticking with the milk metaphor. If milk = Scriptures, then it means now that you've heard them a little, get stuck in. But if milk means relationship with Jesus, then it means that, now you've had the experience of love for Christ and inexpressible joy, feed up to maturity on it. I like that better.
vs 4
The term 'rejected by men' shows that Peter is about to start using the OT "capstone" metaphor. Jesus isn't just the one dispassionately chosen by God, but is also precious to him - like a Son, you might say. Worth remembering that's part of God's plan - his beloved Son has to do the job.
vs 5
And there we have it - the priesthood of all believers. All believers make spiritual sacrifices. You certainly can't say that Peter was only writing to bishops here! And yet for centuries the church treated the sacrament of communion like a sacrifice done on an altar to appease God. What fools we are.
We're not all making sacrifices to God of Jesus Christ, we are making them through Jesus Christ. And those sacrifices may very well be of our lives through suffering.
vs 6
And so Peter backs up what he says through Scripture. He's probably also quoting it in case they haven't made the connection yet. Teaching as much as proving.
vs 7
Not everyone values the precious capstone of Zion. Not only do they reject it...
vs 8
But it also causes them to stumble and fall. They heard the message but rejected it, and so they stumble. What does "destined for" mean? I'm no Calvinist, but the greek supposedly means "they were appointed for" - so its not simply the idea that you choose your own destiny, and if you disobey God then you are destined to stumble. It certainly seems to read that they were chosen for this rejection. But if my studies of philosophy do me any stead, then I can tell you that being determined and having free choice are not necessarily in opposition. It could be that we just seek to draw a false dichotomy between them. I didn't write it - it's there in black and white. I know what Charles & John Wesley would say anyway.
vs 9
Here's the other side of the equation - a chosen people. What does he mean? Bah, who cares. If Peter doesn't explain it, then it's either a. self evident or b. irrelevant. It's certainly not self evident to us and hasn't been to the church for the majority of its existance, but it might have been to the early believers. Who knows.
The important thing is that we've been called out of darkness to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. Interesting mix of descriptors. You can imagine a holy priesthood, and a royal nation, but here the sacred and secular mix - although really the "secular" in these statements is still sacred because it's talking about the kingdom of God.
It does, however, show us that we should have an attitude far more like the Jews or even (gasp) Muslims when it comes to the "holy nation" of believers. Peter uses the political term advisedly - you don't ever become a traitor to your own people, or your leader. It doesn't mean we have to all move into the same country together. Think of the pre-Israel Jewish diaspora, or the Muslim umma - the whole idea is that you're Jewish first, nationality second. The Jews are a nation of people spread around the world. Christians are like that too - we don't need a country to all band together in - we've got the kingdom of God.
vs 10
Once again, we are a people. Once we weren't a people (Ok, sure, we were all members of countries or provinces or whatever, but remember Peter is writing to at least 5 separate groupings of people, and they were never a people together, except perhaps Roman or Greek, and then not by blood). Now we are a people united by God. And this is part of God's mercy. It's like the reversal of the Tower of Babel - by God's wrath we were dispersed, but his mercy we are brought together.
vs 11
Again, aliens and strangers in this world! Again with the nationhood of believers. But now, instead of our first allegience being to our heavenly country instead of our earthly one, Peter shows that the true demarkation is between the heavenly realm and the earthly one. As much as we are citizens of the kingdom of God before our earthly countries, we are citizens of heaven, not citizens of the earth. There's a war going on between heaven and earth, and it's partly fought in the souls of believers. Not that we're not called to fight that one though - abstain from those things which cause the war, that is, sinful desires.
vs 12
I wonder how many martyrs went to their deaths with this verse in mind? You can see why the Roman government saw Christianity as a threat - Peter here is out-and-out saying that your Roman citizenship is nothing compared to your heavenly one. Christianity is like a breakaway rebel group! But instead of taking up arms and fighting, they are waging a "good lives" protest - living such good lives that people can't help but notice. Much more effective than a silent protest or a starvation protest. And you don't even have to set yourself on fire - the Romans will do that for you (bloody Nero). If ever there was a verse to get you started on your rebellion against this world, it's this one.
Chapter 2
vs 1
Another therefore. So since you are born of an imperishable seed, you should get rid of all these things that suggest your birth to a perishable one. Interesting that Peter picks a list of sins which is entirely focused on the trashing of personal relationships - very much linked with loving your brothers I think (1:22).
vs 2
This verse could suggest that Peter considers this letter to be to those new in the faith, which shows just how quickly coming to faith meant suffering persecution back then. In any case, the pure spiritual milk is most probably not the Scriptures (but that's instantly what we think it is) - to my reading, it is your relationship with Jesus, as I think this idea links back to 1:7-9. But that's just me.
vs 3
Sticking with the milk metaphor. If milk = Scriptures, then it means now that you've heard them a little, get stuck in. But if milk means relationship with Jesus, then it means that, now you've had the experience of love for Christ and inexpressible joy, feed up to maturity on it. I like that better.
vs 4
The term 'rejected by men' shows that Peter is about to start using the OT "capstone" metaphor. Jesus isn't just the one dispassionately chosen by God, but is also precious to him - like a Son, you might say. Worth remembering that's part of God's plan - his beloved Son has to do the job.
vs 5
And there we have it - the priesthood of all believers. All believers make spiritual sacrifices. You certainly can't say that Peter was only writing to bishops here! And yet for centuries the church treated the sacrament of communion like a sacrifice done on an altar to appease God. What fools we are.
We're not all making sacrifices to God of Jesus Christ, we are making them through Jesus Christ. And those sacrifices may very well be of our lives through suffering.
vs 6
And so Peter backs up what he says through Scripture. He's probably also quoting it in case they haven't made the connection yet. Teaching as much as proving.
vs 7
Not everyone values the precious capstone of Zion. Not only do they reject it...
vs 8
But it also causes them to stumble and fall. They heard the message but rejected it, and so they stumble. What does "destined for" mean? I'm no Calvinist, but the greek supposedly means "they were appointed for" - so its not simply the idea that you choose your own destiny, and if you disobey God then you are destined to stumble. It certainly seems to read that they were chosen for this rejection. But if my studies of philosophy do me any stead, then I can tell you that being determined and having free choice are not necessarily in opposition. It could be that we just seek to draw a false dichotomy between them. I didn't write it - it's there in black and white. I know what Charles & John Wesley would say anyway.
vs 9
Here's the other side of the equation - a chosen people. What does he mean? Bah, who cares. If Peter doesn't explain it, then it's either a. self evident or b. irrelevant. It's certainly not self evident to us and hasn't been to the church for the majority of its existance, but it might have been to the early believers. Who knows.
The important thing is that we've been called out of darkness to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. Interesting mix of descriptors. You can imagine a holy priesthood, and a royal nation, but here the sacred and secular mix - although really the "secular" in these statements is still sacred because it's talking about the kingdom of God.
It does, however, show us that we should have an attitude far more like the Jews or even (gasp) Muslims when it comes to the "holy nation" of believers. Peter uses the political term advisedly - you don't ever become a traitor to your own people, or your leader. It doesn't mean we have to all move into the same country together. Think of the pre-Israel Jewish diaspora, or the Muslim umma - the whole idea is that you're Jewish first, nationality second. The Jews are a nation of people spread around the world. Christians are like that too - we don't need a country to all band together in - we've got the kingdom of God.
vs 10
Once again, we are a people. Once we weren't a people (Ok, sure, we were all members of countries or provinces or whatever, but remember Peter is writing to at least 5 separate groupings of people, and they were never a people together, except perhaps Roman or Greek, and then not by blood). Now we are a people united by God. And this is part of God's mercy. It's like the reversal of the Tower of Babel - by God's wrath we were dispersed, but his mercy we are brought together.
vs 11
Again, aliens and strangers in this world! Again with the nationhood of believers. But now, instead of our first allegience being to our heavenly country instead of our earthly one, Peter shows that the true demarkation is between the heavenly realm and the earthly one. As much as we are citizens of the kingdom of God before our earthly countries, we are citizens of heaven, not citizens of the earth. There's a war going on between heaven and earth, and it's partly fought in the souls of believers. Not that we're not called to fight that one though - abstain from those things which cause the war, that is, sinful desires.
vs 12
I wonder how many martyrs went to their deaths with this verse in mind? You can see why the Roman government saw Christianity as a threat - Peter here is out-and-out saying that your Roman citizenship is nothing compared to your heavenly one. Christianity is like a breakaway rebel group! But instead of taking up arms and fighting, they are waging a "good lives" protest - living such good lives that people can't help but notice. Much more effective than a silent protest or a starvation protest. And you don't even have to set yourself on fire - the Romans will do that for you (bloody Nero). If ever there was a verse to get you started on your rebellion against this world, it's this one.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 1
vs 13
Therefore - hearkening back to the previous ideas. Now this is an interesting one. The most natural reading grammatically is, in my opinion, also the most unnatural to our feeble, modern brains. Peter is basically saying "Because the prophets have served you in bringing you the message of the gospel, you should be ready for action!" Huh? But I think that is the proper reading, because verse 14 refers to our lives of ignorance - that is, pre-gospel. But I will also acknowledge that he could be referring more broadly to the larger idea of the previous chunk, which is about the hope, inheritance and faith that we have, or even on the fact that trials and persecutions are happening.
In any case, the idea is that we be ready for action. Notice we must prepare our minds. I heard a great talk by John North just last weekend talking about the fact that the battleground on which we fight the devil and temptation is our mind. So preparing your mind for action is preparing for spiritual warfare as much as intellectual warfare. Self control factors into this, because if your actions are innapropriate, they can undermine your mind. And we should fix our hopes on the grace of God through Christ. That's the foundation of your faith, because if your hopes are built on anything else, you're not Christian.
vs 14
The suggestion of this verse, like many in the NT, is that somehow our desires for evil stuff can just go away, can just be dealt with, because we are no longer ignorant about God and his grace through Christ. And yet we tend to preach a gospel of "you will constantly fail, but just praise God for his grace and keep going". While the experiential truth is that we will always be sinful while we're here on broken-creation, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with this statement, because we ignore the transforming work of the Holy Spirit to change people. The simple gospel fact is that when you become a Christian, you aren't the person you were before that change. Surely our focus as Christians should be on the miracle of life-change that God offers (and does!) and not on the remnant life that we seem to train our beady eyes on?
There was a time where I wouldn't have made that statement, but two things changed my mind. First was the confession of an old, wise, godly man who was an elder of my first church, Eric Reed. This man was to me the best model for godliness I have seen. Once at a men's Bible study, whilst being interviewed for the encouragement of the group, he was asked the question "At your age and maturity, how do you struggle with sin?" His answer was, quite simply, "I don't really." He went on to explain that while old age does a fair amount to slow you down (so he wasn't out chasing tail at age 85), by far it was his attitude of focusing fully on the grace given him through Jesus Christ. Needless to say, it wasn't the answer we were expecting.
Second was a recent reading about the early church, which was far stricter about its membership and its lifestyle. Before Constantine, the church was suffering under great persecution, and so you only really joined a church if you were convicted of the need to follow Jesus. But when the church became open, it was flooded with people who only half-believed, who were in it for personal gain, who used it for political power etc. And the church changed its attitude from exclusive to inclusive. Now true, the state control of the church at this point was also a weakness of the church, but I think it highlights our modern church's lack of focus on the transformed life. I feel like if we were living it, then other people would see it and want to live it too.
vs 15-16
Here's the reasons why we should live it. Holiness is that which separates God from his creation - it's what makes him different. Holiness for us is not just being pure. We are called to be holy like God is holy. That means we should be noticeably different from those that aren't holy.
vs 17
Peter builds on this idea. We're strangers here. Different to the locals. Interestingly, God will judge your works, and will do so impartially. And the knowledge of that judgement is to lead us to an attitude of reverent fear. It's not all "God has prepared a place for me, woohoo!" There is also an attitude of "Better watch what I do, God will judge me for it". True, the time of judgement will pale in comparison to the eternity of glory, but we're told to take note of it anyway.
vs 18
A commentary on our strangerhood. The currency of this world isn't what has saved us from the screwed up worldview passed down by our society (although Peter writes like a Jew, remember lots of the people who got this letter were gentiles).
vs 19
The currency of heaven - perfect blood of the eternal. Sounds like an emo band.
vs 20
A reference to God's plan for salvation pre-creation, that is, pre-Adam. Revealed at what we must suppose was the perfect time - certainly good for those reading the letter originally.
vs 21
Peter once again is focusing not on Christ, but on the God who sent him, raised him, and glorified him. But don't think for a second that Peter is trying to say Jesus isn't God - this is the same Peter who make the confession "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". These statements are probably more to combat the heresy of docetism or early gnosticism that was running around the church at this time which saw our relationship with Christ alone, because he was a sort of demigod and the true God was unapproachable. Peter counters that idea by showing that our relationship, our hope and our faith, all rest on God the father.
vs 22
This makes it sound like our purification has already taken place. Perhaps a reference to baptism? I'm not sure, I've got baptism on the brain at the moment. Whatever he means, he is sure that it leads to sincere love for your Christian siblings. But then he goes on to tell you that you should love each other. Sincere in the greek I am told means "not fake" (the English does too I guess). Perhaps he means that through your Christianity you are given love for your brothers (like a thing), and so now you should use it on your brothers (like an action). Almost like you are given the ability to love one another by God, now you are to use it.
vs 23
Again our new birth is stressed. Not from a perishable seed (probably human birth) but an imperishable one (rebirth into hope) through Christ, who is the living word of God.
vs 24-25
Peter uses some Isaiah here to make the point about imperishable seed, and also points out that this is what was preached to you. Probably not meaning that verse (certainly not only that verse), but more likely a reference to the words of the prophets generally which were preached to them, as in verses 10-12.
Chapter 1
vs 13
Therefore - hearkening back to the previous ideas. Now this is an interesting one. The most natural reading grammatically is, in my opinion, also the most unnatural to our feeble, modern brains. Peter is basically saying "Because the prophets have served you in bringing you the message of the gospel, you should be ready for action!" Huh? But I think that is the proper reading, because verse 14 refers to our lives of ignorance - that is, pre-gospel. But I will also acknowledge that he could be referring more broadly to the larger idea of the previous chunk, which is about the hope, inheritance and faith that we have, or even on the fact that trials and persecutions are happening.
In any case, the idea is that we be ready for action. Notice we must prepare our minds. I heard a great talk by John North just last weekend talking about the fact that the battleground on which we fight the devil and temptation is our mind. So preparing your mind for action is preparing for spiritual warfare as much as intellectual warfare. Self control factors into this, because if your actions are innapropriate, they can undermine your mind. And we should fix our hopes on the grace of God through Christ. That's the foundation of your faith, because if your hopes are built on anything else, you're not Christian.
vs 14
The suggestion of this verse, like many in the NT, is that somehow our desires for evil stuff can just go away, can just be dealt with, because we are no longer ignorant about God and his grace through Christ. And yet we tend to preach a gospel of "you will constantly fail, but just praise God for his grace and keep going". While the experiential truth is that we will always be sinful while we're here on broken-creation, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with this statement, because we ignore the transforming work of the Holy Spirit to change people. The simple gospel fact is that when you become a Christian, you aren't the person you were before that change. Surely our focus as Christians should be on the miracle of life-change that God offers (and does!) and not on the remnant life that we seem to train our beady eyes on?
There was a time where I wouldn't have made that statement, but two things changed my mind. First was the confession of an old, wise, godly man who was an elder of my first church, Eric Reed. This man was to me the best model for godliness I have seen. Once at a men's Bible study, whilst being interviewed for the encouragement of the group, he was asked the question "At your age and maturity, how do you struggle with sin?" His answer was, quite simply, "I don't really." He went on to explain that while old age does a fair amount to slow you down (so he wasn't out chasing tail at age 85), by far it was his attitude of focusing fully on the grace given him through Jesus Christ. Needless to say, it wasn't the answer we were expecting.
Second was a recent reading about the early church, which was far stricter about its membership and its lifestyle. Before Constantine, the church was suffering under great persecution, and so you only really joined a church if you were convicted of the need to follow Jesus. But when the church became open, it was flooded with people who only half-believed, who were in it for personal gain, who used it for political power etc. And the church changed its attitude from exclusive to inclusive. Now true, the state control of the church at this point was also a weakness of the church, but I think it highlights our modern church's lack of focus on the transformed life. I feel like if we were living it, then other people would see it and want to live it too.
vs 15-16
Here's the reasons why we should live it. Holiness is that which separates God from his creation - it's what makes him different. Holiness for us is not just being pure. We are called to be holy like God is holy. That means we should be noticeably different from those that aren't holy.
vs 17
Peter builds on this idea. We're strangers here. Different to the locals. Interestingly, God will judge your works, and will do so impartially. And the knowledge of that judgement is to lead us to an attitude of reverent fear. It's not all "God has prepared a place for me, woohoo!" There is also an attitude of "Better watch what I do, God will judge me for it". True, the time of judgement will pale in comparison to the eternity of glory, but we're told to take note of it anyway.
vs 18
A commentary on our strangerhood. The currency of this world isn't what has saved us from the screwed up worldview passed down by our society (although Peter writes like a Jew, remember lots of the people who got this letter were gentiles).
vs 19
The currency of heaven - perfect blood of the eternal. Sounds like an emo band.
vs 20
A reference to God's plan for salvation pre-creation, that is, pre-Adam. Revealed at what we must suppose was the perfect time - certainly good for those reading the letter originally.
vs 21
Peter once again is focusing not on Christ, but on the God who sent him, raised him, and glorified him. But don't think for a second that Peter is trying to say Jesus isn't God - this is the same Peter who make the confession "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". These statements are probably more to combat the heresy of docetism or early gnosticism that was running around the church at this time which saw our relationship with Christ alone, because he was a sort of demigod and the true God was unapproachable. Peter counters that idea by showing that our relationship, our hope and our faith, all rest on God the father.
vs 22
This makes it sound like our purification has already taken place. Perhaps a reference to baptism? I'm not sure, I've got baptism on the brain at the moment. Whatever he means, he is sure that it leads to sincere love for your Christian siblings. But then he goes on to tell you that you should love each other. Sincere in the greek I am told means "not fake" (the English does too I guess). Perhaps he means that through your Christianity you are given love for your brothers (like a thing), and so now you should use it on your brothers (like an action). Almost like you are given the ability to love one another by God, now you are to use it.
vs 23
Again our new birth is stressed. Not from a perishable seed (probably human birth) but an imperishable one (rebirth into hope) through Christ, who is the living word of God.
vs 24-25
Peter uses some Isaiah here to make the point about imperishable seed, and also points out that this is what was preached to you. Probably not meaning that verse (certainly not only that verse), but more likely a reference to the words of the prophets generally which were preached to them, as in verses 10-12.
Monday, July 31, 2006
1 Peter
Chapter 1
vs 1
This tells us who wrote this letter (Peter), and who he wrote it to. Normally I'd say this is important - but since it's written to basically every Christian group in Asia, you can assume that it is a fairly general letter in its nature. All the better for us, because it makes it easier to apply to our lives.
vs 2
An interesting spin on the whole predestination argument here. Peter obviously thinks this whole thing is important, because in the first verse he refers to Christians as "God's elect". He says our election comes from God's foreknowledge - ok, so far typical Calvinist type stuff. What I find interesting are his next few points. Firstly, that our chosing comes through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. So we've got the typical sort of "chosen since before the world began" line, but then it seems that is practically worked out at the time of the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work in our lives. I can't say I often think about it that way.
Why were we chosen? So that we obey Jesus, and so that we are "sprinkled by his blood" - trust Peter to say something so Jewish. I'm sure by that he means to be saved. It's always good to know that God has elected us for a purpose - to obey Jesus, and to be saved.
And then Peter has his little letter beginning statement. Paul says similar things - the early Christian equivalent of saying "Dear such and such, just a few words to let you know I'm still alive".
vs 3
To me, this verse seems to clearly show that Peter is making a delineation between the two members of the Godhead he's discussing - Father and Son. Interesting that he says "Praise be to God who is the God and Father of Jesus" rather than just saying what we'd probably be keen to say, "Praise Jesus". Peter's focus here is on the work of God - it's his mercy that effects us. It's his power which brings Christ back from the dead. A good reminder to us that while we spend all our time thanking Jesus for the cross and for his sacrifice (so many Christian songs come to mind) Peter is busy praising God for his own mercy and his power in resurrecting Jesus. That's what our hope is built on - it's been given life by the same power that gave Jesus his life again.
vs 4
We're not just given a living hope, we're also given an inheritance. One that's kept safe in heaven. What is that inheritance exactly? The way it's described, it's eternal (won't spoil or perish or fade) and it's in heaven. The fact that it's not spelt out probably means that this statement (like many in these first few verses, and many in the opening verses of lots of the letters) is a commonly known statement being bandied around by the Christians at the time. Paul uses it in the beginning of Ephesians in a way that suggests an eternal inheritance held up for us in heaven. He also uses it early in Colossians.
So what is it? Could be the Kingdom of God. Jesus says that it is our inheritance, and was prepared since the creation of the world. Paul describes the inheritance later in Ephesians as of the kingdom of Christ and God, and again in Colossians with the idea of the kingdom being involved. Could be a physical inheritance. Paul talks about gaining an inheritance through the word of God to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 - in my reading he seems to be talking about making a living from the preaching of the word, even though he himself didn't. In Colossians 3 Paul seems to suggest the inheritance as a reward for hard work, in the context of slaves working for their masters.
I'm going with the inheritance being something to do with our place in the kingdom. The talk if an inheritance is an essentially OT idea - the whole inheritance of the promised land stuff. Later in 1 Peter, he talks about husbands and wives both being heirs to the gift of life.
I guess the wierd thing for us reading it is that Peter would use two terms for what to us is essentially the same thing - the hope we have (salvation) and the inheritance we have (also salvation). Why would Peter talk about us being born into one and into the other, as if they were two different things if they are essentially the same thing? It is entirely possible that in Peter's theology those things aren't just simply seen as the same thing. Perhaps, as a Jew, he's looking at the two different aspects of relationship with God - one being a member of the chosen people (that allows you to have relationship with God) - and one being one of those who inherits the promised land (that allows you to receive the blessings of God). Perhaps it's that we focus on the relationship "being with God in heaven" aspect so much, but that the inheritance of the Kingdom, that is, the quality of our life in heaven, is something we don't often think about. I'm not sure. I might look into it further.
vs 5
"Shielded by God's power" is a really interesting statement for Peter to make, especially considering the agenda of persecution he has for the letter. Could it be that, when we're facing persecution and strife, that we're actually not copping the full brunt of it, and that God is shielding us from it to some extent?
Along with that idea, we have one of these "now but not yet" verses that describes salvation as being ready to be revealed, as if it's not quite revealed yet. Peter then thoroughly confuses us with the other end of the stick in verse 9.
vs 6
What are we rejoicing at? It's tempting to say "Ooh, the salvation that was just before", but I think the entirety of the idea that flows through verses 3-5 is the hope and the inheritance that we've been newly born into. Either way, they're worth rejoicing about.
And what did I say? Here comes the suffering. It could even be that, in the context of the suffering you're currently suffering, you are rejoicing in the shielding of God. That doesn't really do it for me.
vs 7
The suffering has come to prove your faith, so if you've ever found yourself wondering "Do I really believe all this stuff, do I really have faith?" perhaps more persecution is required so that your faith can be proved genuine - or not, as the case may be.
It's also because this suffering will result in praise, glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed. If this world wasn't so crappy, there wouldn't be as big a "Huzzah!" when Jesus comes back. Interesting thought. I think it also backs me up on that earlier point - if we were rejoicing in God's shielding of us through suffering, you'd think we'd have less to cheer about when Jesus gets back.
vs 8
What a verse for the modern day Christian! Bad enough for the Asian gentile Christians who never got to see Jesus - at least they had eye witnesses! We've got the Bible, but I think everyone agrees that your average 1st century Christian had it easier on the believing side than the 21st century Christian. It's that belief of and love for Christ, as well as the filling of joy, that are pointers to...
vs 9
the fact that we are receiving our salvation. Some people say that we don't love God because he saved us, but because he is God and is worthy of love regardless. Interesting point, but Peter is candid about it here - the goal of our faith is our salvation. Yes, it's true that God is worthy of praise and worship simply because he's God. But remember - the goal of our faith isn't just our goal, it's also God's goal. He wants our faith to end up being our salvation, because he's awesome.
vs 10
Ahh, the prophets. We don't give them as much time of day anymore, but they were pretty vital to the early church who didn't have the collected New Testament. They themselves were keen to find out about this stuff that they themselves were preaching!
vs 11
They wanted to know when it was all going to happen. Interesting side note - the spirit of Christ was in the prophets - Christ himself pointing the prophets to their prophecies about him?
vs 12
Imagine being a prophet, and finding out that some of the stuff you're being told by God about his plan for salvation of the world isn't actually for you or the people you're telling it to - that it's going to be held over for those people who are there when the whole thing happens. Just goes to show that it's not a stretch to take that stuff written in the OT and apply it to Christ - because God designed it that way. And just in case the people who come to tell you about Jesus and the gospel through the OT screw it up, the Holy Spirit will keep them on track.
Even angels long to look into these things, whatever that means. I swear, the 1st century people must have been so much more understanding about the whole angel and demon thing. That sentence just makes no sense to me. Is Peter saying that even though the Christians he's written to have had the gospel preached to them, the angels can't hear it? Surely there's more to it than that. I think the whole angel and demon thing could be really well explained to us Western non-spiritual people by the Christians of the non-Western world. I can't wait to have access to theological texts written by African theologians who have a stronger cultural and spiritual grasp of these issues. Just one more thing the non-Western church can do for us.
Chapter 1
vs 1
This tells us who wrote this letter (Peter), and who he wrote it to. Normally I'd say this is important - but since it's written to basically every Christian group in Asia, you can assume that it is a fairly general letter in its nature. All the better for us, because it makes it easier to apply to our lives.
vs 2
An interesting spin on the whole predestination argument here. Peter obviously thinks this whole thing is important, because in the first verse he refers to Christians as "God's elect". He says our election comes from God's foreknowledge - ok, so far typical Calvinist type stuff. What I find interesting are his next few points. Firstly, that our chosing comes through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. So we've got the typical sort of "chosen since before the world began" line, but then it seems that is practically worked out at the time of the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work in our lives. I can't say I often think about it that way.
Why were we chosen? So that we obey Jesus, and so that we are "sprinkled by his blood" - trust Peter to say something so Jewish. I'm sure by that he means to be saved. It's always good to know that God has elected us for a purpose - to obey Jesus, and to be saved.
And then Peter has his little letter beginning statement. Paul says similar things - the early Christian equivalent of saying "Dear such and such, just a few words to let you know I'm still alive".
vs 3
To me, this verse seems to clearly show that Peter is making a delineation between the two members of the Godhead he's discussing - Father and Son. Interesting that he says "Praise be to God who is the God and Father of Jesus" rather than just saying what we'd probably be keen to say, "Praise Jesus". Peter's focus here is on the work of God - it's his mercy that effects us. It's his power which brings Christ back from the dead. A good reminder to us that while we spend all our time thanking Jesus for the cross and for his sacrifice (so many Christian songs come to mind) Peter is busy praising God for his own mercy and his power in resurrecting Jesus. That's what our hope is built on - it's been given life by the same power that gave Jesus his life again.
vs 4
We're not just given a living hope, we're also given an inheritance. One that's kept safe in heaven. What is that inheritance exactly? The way it's described, it's eternal (won't spoil or perish or fade) and it's in heaven. The fact that it's not spelt out probably means that this statement (like many in these first few verses, and many in the opening verses of lots of the letters) is a commonly known statement being bandied around by the Christians at the time. Paul uses it in the beginning of Ephesians in a way that suggests an eternal inheritance held up for us in heaven. He also uses it early in Colossians.
So what is it? Could be the Kingdom of God. Jesus says that it is our inheritance, and was prepared since the creation of the world. Paul describes the inheritance later in Ephesians as of the kingdom of Christ and God, and again in Colossians with the idea of the kingdom being involved. Could be a physical inheritance. Paul talks about gaining an inheritance through the word of God to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 - in my reading he seems to be talking about making a living from the preaching of the word, even though he himself didn't. In Colossians 3 Paul seems to suggest the inheritance as a reward for hard work, in the context of slaves working for their masters.
I'm going with the inheritance being something to do with our place in the kingdom. The talk if an inheritance is an essentially OT idea - the whole inheritance of the promised land stuff. Later in 1 Peter, he talks about husbands and wives both being heirs to the gift of life.
I guess the wierd thing for us reading it is that Peter would use two terms for what to us is essentially the same thing - the hope we have (salvation) and the inheritance we have (also salvation). Why would Peter talk about us being born into one and into the other, as if they were two different things if they are essentially the same thing? It is entirely possible that in Peter's theology those things aren't just simply seen as the same thing. Perhaps, as a Jew, he's looking at the two different aspects of relationship with God - one being a member of the chosen people (that allows you to have relationship with God) - and one being one of those who inherits the promised land (that allows you to receive the blessings of God). Perhaps it's that we focus on the relationship "being with God in heaven" aspect so much, but that the inheritance of the Kingdom, that is, the quality of our life in heaven, is something we don't often think about. I'm not sure. I might look into it further.
vs 5
"Shielded by God's power" is a really interesting statement for Peter to make, especially considering the agenda of persecution he has for the letter. Could it be that, when we're facing persecution and strife, that we're actually not copping the full brunt of it, and that God is shielding us from it to some extent?
Along with that idea, we have one of these "now but not yet" verses that describes salvation as being ready to be revealed, as if it's not quite revealed yet. Peter then thoroughly confuses us with the other end of the stick in verse 9.
vs 6
What are we rejoicing at? It's tempting to say "Ooh, the salvation that was just before", but I think the entirety of the idea that flows through verses 3-5 is the hope and the inheritance that we've been newly born into. Either way, they're worth rejoicing about.
And what did I say? Here comes the suffering. It could even be that, in the context of the suffering you're currently suffering, you are rejoicing in the shielding of God. That doesn't really do it for me.
vs 7
The suffering has come to prove your faith, so if you've ever found yourself wondering "Do I really believe all this stuff, do I really have faith?" perhaps more persecution is required so that your faith can be proved genuine - or not, as the case may be.
It's also because this suffering will result in praise, glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed. If this world wasn't so crappy, there wouldn't be as big a "Huzzah!" when Jesus comes back. Interesting thought. I think it also backs me up on that earlier point - if we were rejoicing in God's shielding of us through suffering, you'd think we'd have less to cheer about when Jesus gets back.
vs 8
What a verse for the modern day Christian! Bad enough for the Asian gentile Christians who never got to see Jesus - at least they had eye witnesses! We've got the Bible, but I think everyone agrees that your average 1st century Christian had it easier on the believing side than the 21st century Christian. It's that belief of and love for Christ, as well as the filling of joy, that are pointers to...
vs 9
the fact that we are receiving our salvation. Some people say that we don't love God because he saved us, but because he is God and is worthy of love regardless. Interesting point, but Peter is candid about it here - the goal of our faith is our salvation. Yes, it's true that God is worthy of praise and worship simply because he's God. But remember - the goal of our faith isn't just our goal, it's also God's goal. He wants our faith to end up being our salvation, because he's awesome.
vs 10
Ahh, the prophets. We don't give them as much time of day anymore, but they were pretty vital to the early church who didn't have the collected New Testament. They themselves were keen to find out about this stuff that they themselves were preaching!
vs 11
They wanted to know when it was all going to happen. Interesting side note - the spirit of Christ was in the prophets - Christ himself pointing the prophets to their prophecies about him?
vs 12
Imagine being a prophet, and finding out that some of the stuff you're being told by God about his plan for salvation of the world isn't actually for you or the people you're telling it to - that it's going to be held over for those people who are there when the whole thing happens. Just goes to show that it's not a stretch to take that stuff written in the OT and apply it to Christ - because God designed it that way. And just in case the people who come to tell you about Jesus and the gospel through the OT screw it up, the Holy Spirit will keep them on track.
Even angels long to look into these things, whatever that means. I swear, the 1st century people must have been so much more understanding about the whole angel and demon thing. That sentence just makes no sense to me. Is Peter saying that even though the Christians he's written to have had the gospel preached to them, the angels can't hear it? Surely there's more to it than that. I think the whole angel and demon thing could be really well explained to us Western non-spiritual people by the Christians of the non-Western world. I can't wait to have access to theological texts written by African theologians who have a stronger cultural and spiritual grasp of these issues. Just one more thing the non-Western church can do for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)