“If You Should Suffer for Righteousness’ Sake” – (1 Peter 3:8-17) – Words from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Seven)
In modern America, Christians are thought be self-righteous spoil-sports who reject science, deny people the right to marry and sleep with whomever they want, and who think we alone are right. The reality is that if you identify yourself as a Christian you will encounter similar situations to those Peter is describing. People will curse and revile you because they hate Jesus and all he stands for. We must be prepared to give a defense whenever challenged, and yet to do so in the right way. The good news is that Jesus is still Lord, we are still his elect exiles, we are sprinkled with his blood, set apart for his purposes, and heirs to all of his promises. And we know this to be true because of a bloody cross and an empty tomb.
It is foolish to attempt to deny reality. The fact is Christians are going to be misunderstood, mistrusted, and persecuted precisely because we are believers in Jesus Christ. Those unbelievers, secularists, and pagans we encounter do not understand our faith in Christ. They feel no need whatsoever to believe in Jesus, and when they do understand what we believe, they openly reject it–especially Christian teaching about salvation being found only in Jesus (an exclusive truth claim), as well as Christian teaching about sexual ethics. Whenever this conflict between Christians and unbelievers occurs–and it will–how are we to respond?
In chapter 3 of his first epistle, Peter instructs us to seek to bring glory and honor to Jesus Christ in such situations, rather than focusing upon responding to any personal insults directed our way. Christians must learn how to deal with those who have power over us in the civil kingdom without being afraid of our oppressors, who will themselves answer to our Lord. We must learn to respond in such a way that we continually point those who are contentious toward us back to the suffering servant, Jesus. According to Peter, Christians must be prepared for these encounters with both the right answers and the right attitude.
Setting the Context
In our series on 1 Peter, so far, we have made our way into chapter three and we are presently considering Peter’s instructions to Christians of the Diaspora. To set the context, recall that Peter’s epistle is sent to a group of Christian exiles in Asia Minor, who have been displaced from their homes by a decree from Claudius, the previous Roman emperor. Peter begins his letter of encouragement to these struggling sojourners by reminding them that God has caused them to be born again, they have been set apart (sanctified) by God, and therefore sprinkled by the blood of Jesus–ensuring their sins are forgiven. Also, Christians are to live holy lives before the Lord so as to silence those critical of our faith.
Peter reminds his hearers that although they are facing difficult times from their pagan neighbors, in God’s sight, these people are elect exiles, a chosen race, and spiritual house, indwelt by the Spirit of the living God. Although they are citizens of Rome, they simultaneously possess a heavenly citizenship and are heirs to all the things promised them by God. But their heavenly citizenship will inevitably bring them into conflict with the unbelievers around them, and so the apostle seeks to prepare his readers to deal with those who reject Jesus, and who do not understand why Christians believe and do the things they do.
In 1 Peter 2:11-3:7, Peter addresses three of the main elements of the Greco-Roman household code–an unwritten code dating back perhaps to Aristotle, and which defines a number of the social relationships upon which Greco-Roman society was built. These relationships include the authority of civil government, the relationship between slaves and masters, as well as the relationship between husbands and wives. Christians too believe that these matters are important and God has addressed a number of them in his word. Yet, in each one of these societal relationships, and under current circumstances, Christians have little power or control. Peter’s readers were facing tremendous persecution from their pagan neighbors as the elect exiles of the Diaspora of Asia Minor.
Throughout section of his epistle, Peter exhorts Christians to submit to the Roman civil authorities, even those governors then persecuting Peter’s readers–except in those cases where civil authorities demand that Christians violate the will of God. When this happens, Christians are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). In order to make things bearable, Peter instructs Christian slaves and servants to submit to their masters, even if their masters are cruel. Finally Peter exhorts Christian wives to submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are not Christians. At the same time, Peter insists that Christian husbands not view their greater physical strength as a reason for believing their wives to be inferior–as the Greco-Roman household code held. Rather, Christian husbands are to see their wives as weaker vessels who require “understanding” (the knowledge that wives are to be treated as taught in Scripture), and who are worthy of honor–which means to be treated with the same respect to which all divine image bearers and co-heirs with Christ are entitled.
Christianity is Subversive
In the light of Christianity’s conflict with various aspects of the Greco-Roman household codes, we forget just how revolutionary Christianity was in the first century–especially in regard to sexual ethics and to societal relationships. In all three of these cases he mentions, Peter urges Christians to respect lawful authority and submit to it upon two grounds; 1). We submit to those in authority over us in order to be a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated great humility in those times he suffered and was persecuted, and 2). We submit to those over us to deflate or remove any objections those in authority over us might have, so that Christians receive better treatment from the hands of those who oppress them.
In verses 21–25 of chapter 2, Peter paraphrases the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which speaks of Jesus as the “suffering servant” of the Lord, whose example we are to follow. Peter writes,
. . . to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Since vengeance belongs to the Lord, Christians are not to retaliate in anger against those who persecute them. Instead, Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, and endure our suffering patiently, knowing that Jesus’s own suffering preceded his resurrection and ascension.
Beginning in verse 8 of chapter 3, Peter concludes his discussion of the Christian’s relationship to the Greco-Roman household code (going back to chapter 2:11) by summing up what a Christian’s attitude should be toward those who persecute them during difficult times. Peter then lists those things Christians ought to do so as to encourage and strengthen one another during the difficult times such as those Peter has been describing. The apostle confirms and illustrates these points by appealing to the words of Psalm 34–a Psalm to which Peter alludes throughout and quotes in this section of his letter.
A Unity of Mind
In verses 8-9, Peter writes, “finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.” When Christians manifest these qualities within the church, as well as in their dealings with those outside the church (especially those persecuting them) Christians are not as prone to division, and will mutually encourage one another–something very important during times and trial and persecution.
The first matter on Peter’s list is “unity of mind.” Christians are exhorted to be like-minded, which means they should believe the same things,[1] and work hard to avoid division within their own ranks. Sadly, struggling and persecuted Christians are prone to division because during trying times people’s sinful behavior shows itself in seeking to do things their way, while ignoring the circumstances of others. This is one of the reasons why “confessional” Protestant churches have extensive doctrinal standards as a means of being “like-minded.” Our own doctrinal standards are known as the “Three Forms of Unity,” because Reformed churches unite around confessing particular doctrines.
Next, Peter instructs Christians to be sympathetic to one another. Paul expands the meaning of this a bit in Romans 12:15, where he writes, “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” Christians should strive to put themselves in the shoes of their brothers and sisters, and genuinely care about the needs of others. Churches will be filled with people, who at any given time, are experiencing the great joys of life (marriages, births, anniversaries) while others endure the dreaded events of life (job loss, sickness, and death). These are things of which we are to be aware, and we are to respond accordingly. We “rejoice with those who rejoice,” and we “weep with those who weep.”
Peter also exhorts Christians to demonstrate “brotherly love” (philadelphoi). Peter’s main point here is that the church is the New Israel, and its members share a common brotherhood which unites us in deep and powerful ways–for many of us, our bond to our brothers and sisters in Christ can be deeper than our ties to family members. A church family is a wonderful thing. As God loves us in Jesus Christ (vertical), so too we are to love all those who are likewise the objects of God’s love (horizontal). This kind of brotherly love is not a shallow demonstration of love typical of much of American Christianity–those kumbaya moments when we just wanna hug everybody–but is manifest in concrete acts on behalf of others. We love our brothers and sisters when we watch their kids when there is a need, when we send meals or words of encouragement when someone is ill, or when we help those who need help (which is why we have deacons). This is not only a blessing to God’s people, it is a powerful witness to those outside the church who are watching our every move.
Christians are to have a tender heart, which is closely related to sympathy. A tender heart alerts us to the needs of others. In Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul ties this kind of tender-heartedness to forgiveness, which we are to extend to others who have wronged us, and which we receive back in return from those whom we have wronged. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul writes, “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”
-
On Dobbs and the Growing Rift in America: Why Only a Spiritual Answer Explains the Division
From the beginning, there has been a long divide between people of faith and people of the flesh, those like Seth who called upon God (Gen. 4:26), and those like Lamech who collected wives, deviated from God’s law, and threatened violence (Gen. 4:23–24).
June 24 is a date that all Christians should now mark on their calendar.
For nearly half a century, January 22 was the day that remembered the decision to make abortion available throughout America. And since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, January 22 has been a day of prayer, petition, and planning for the end of Roe. And now, that prayer has been answered. Glory be to God!
On Friday, when the Supreme Court decided that Roe was not constitutional, they gave us a new day on the calendar to remember the sanctity of life and to give thanks to God for his mercy. June, a month co-opted for gay pride, has returned the rainbow, if for a moment, to its rightful owner—the God of mercy who does not give us what we deserve (see Genesis 9). More on the rainbow another day.
For now, it is worth remembering how the removal of Roe has been a rallying point for Pro-Life Christians for decades. And now that Roe has been overturned, we should give thanks to God for answering our prayers, and we should honor all those who sacrificed in order to make it happen.
Simultaneously, we should acknowledge the ways that elections have tangible consequences. In the election of Donald Trump, evangelicals supported this polarizing figure not because of his skin color, personal faith, or Twitter personality (definitely not his Twitter), but because of promises like this.
Incredibly, he fulfilled those promises. And Roe is now history.
At the same time, Roe’s end should bring incrementalists and abolitionists closer together, as they work to implement laws which protect life. Abolitionists should give thanks for the work incrementalists have done to end Roe, and incrementalists should take up the challenge set out by abolitionists to legislate equal protection under the law. Far more could be accomplished if these two approaches to abortion would work together.
Still, this post and the sermon that follows are less about abortion qua abortion. Rather, they are a biblical reflection on the spiritual warfare that fuels the battle over abortion. Indeed, as already evidenced by 41 cases of vandalism against pro-life groups, Christians should be ready for the increasing hostility that will come with the Dobbs decision. This is the point I want to make here.
The Present Divide is Perpetual, Because It Is Spiritual
Currently, I am ready a futuristic novel set in the year 2024. In Doug Wilson’s Ride Sally Ride, a young man throws a robot sex doll into a trash compactor and is charged with murder. Such is the confusion of personhood that a doll can be a person, if the “husband” says so. My body, my choice, I guess. That’s Wilson’s hook.
Read More
Related Posts: -
An Invalid for Thirty-Eight Years
In the four Gospels, Jesus had come to the promised land which was still in spiritual exile. He had come to lead the meek and lowly to new creation. He had come to bring life to the dead, restoration to the broken, and forgiveness to the transgressors. The physical miracles were signs of God’s inbreaking kingdom. After thirty-eight long years, the invalid in John 5 encounters the Lord Jesus. Though physically lame, the invalid was a spiritual wanderer. By the pool of Bethesda he beheld the Lamb of God who had come to bring people to a greater inheritance—eternal life and new creation.
Jesus healed an invalid in John 5, and the setup to the miracle went like this: “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years” (John 5:2–5).
That’s a very specific number of years. In the Gospels, we’re not normally told how many years someone has dealt with a particular malady. When John tells us this number, he doesn’t even round it to the nearest ten (“about forty years”). He says the man was an invalid for thirty-eight years.
Now maybe that number signifies nothing more than those years for that individual. But this number appears in the Gospel of John, which is known to use numbers in very careful ways. For instance: there are seven “I am” claims, there are seven miracles of Jesus before the cross, in 6:13 there were twelve baskets of bread fragments, and in 21:11 the disciples catch 153 fish (and I’ve argued elsewhere that the 153 fish is a number that means something).
John’s careful and symbolic employment of numbers should, at least, invite us to ask the question, “Does the thirty-eight years in John 5:5 have any discernible significance?” Since the other numbers—like seven or twelve or 153—have Old Testament background that illuminates them, we should consider whether “thirty-eight” has any Old Testament background that illuminates it.
The number “thirty-eight” is used three times in the Old Testament.1 Kings 16:29: “In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab the son of Omri began to reign over Israel, and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years.”
2 Kings 15:8: “In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months.”
Deuteronomy 2:14: “And the time from our leaving Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until the entire generation, that is, the men of war, had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them.”The two occurrences of “thirty-eight” in 1-2 Kings are not about significant events in Israel’s history. On both occasions, the “thirty-eight” is referenced so that we can know how long one king of Judah had been reigning when another king came to power over Israel.
Deuteronomy 2:14, however, is very significant. The period of Israel’s wilderness punishment was thirty-eight years. When you add the months prior to the rebellion in Numbers 13–14, you get forty years from the exodus to the promised land. Nevertheless, the “thirty-eight years” is an important historical note. This number for the wilderness years appears in the Old Testament only in Deuteronomy 2:14.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Natural Law: An Introduction, Part 2
Written by Nicholas K. Meriwether |
Monday, March 20, 2023
Our culture slipped away some time ago from the dictates of natural law, even though they’re fairly obvious, and have replaced them with radical individual autonomy and so-called “authenticity,” which often means simply freedom from any kind of moral, social, or natural restraint. Once we divorced Scripture’s imprimatur from natural law, it became first debatable, then questionable, then irrelevant, and now more recently and perhaps predictably, offensive.Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as everyone to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other. ~Aristotle, Rhetoric, Bk. I, 13
In part 1, we said that a theory of a given human activity can be distinguished at three levels: Level 1 is practical, Level 2 is in relation to society, culture, and history, and Level 3 is in relation to ultimate reality, which is the realm so to speak of philosophy and religion. We also looked at what is needed for an ethical theory. An ethical theory should provide:
(1) Level 1 (practical) principles as to what we should do, including precepts, rules, duties and obligations, but very importantly, what we are forbidden to do.
(2) How we become capable of performing our duties, and also capable of avoiding bad, wrong, or evil actions.
(3) What the purpose or goal of moral actions is in terms of human flourishing and our own individual flourishing, but also in relation to God’s nature and purposes.
(4) On what basis we know right from wrong, and good from evil. This is both in relation to Level 3 questions of what the nature of morality is, but also how we know in a given situation what we should do, which occurs at Level 1.
One reason we start with the theoretical nature of ethics is the perennial danger that Level 1 and 2 considerations, the levels that look at things from a practical standpoint and the standpoint of history, society, and culture, will dominate our attitude toward and beliefs about ethics. There is of course nothing wrong with asking how history and culture affect our views of morality, but asking these questions while ignoring Level 3 will tend to undermine our confidence that ethics has to do with something that is real and true. Let’s look at an influential current example.
Probably most of you have heard the phrase “social construct.” No doubt, you’ve heard the claim that gender (whether a person is male or female), our attitudes about the family, male and female roles, or class is a “social construct.” So what is a social construct? Here’s a concise definition:
A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. It exists because humans agree that it exists.
A good example of a social construct is etiquette. It’s considered extremely rude in Western culture to burp out loud during a meal. But in certain cultures, it’s considered a compliment because it indicates that the food is satisfying. Thus, whether burping is good or bad manners doesn’t seem to reflect objective reality, but one’s culture, that is, whether the people of the culture “agree” that it’s rude. We can say similar things about other rules of etiquette, such as how tableware is placed, or the style of clothing that a person should wear on various occasions, say, weddings vs. funerals. These seem to have been established by social agreement rather than the ultimate nature of reality.
Frequently added to the view that an ethical norm is a social construct is that it’s socially constructed to give some people power over others, such as, for example, that it’s morally appropriate to give nobles rights that serfs don’t have. But notice it’s very tempting to slip from the belief that some behavioral rules are social constructs to the idea that all behavioral rules are social constructs, although this doesn’t follow logically at all.
Against social constructivism, some philosophers seek to defend objectivity in ethics, that there really are enduring ethical norms not based merely on human agreement, and that they are knowable. A term for this view is ethical realism. To counter social constructivism, they use various arguments designed to show that constructivist views, if taken at face value, issue in absurdity or have very harmful consequences. For instance, if someone claims that a given moral belief is just a social construct designed to give some people power, why can’t we say that his view of ethics is just a social construct designed to give him power? If the person responds that he is showing that the exercise of power for its own sake is wrong, we can respond by asking why this view isn’t a social construct, too? A steady diet of social constructivism will undermine all moral beliefs, not just the ones that the constructivist wants us to abandon, but even his view that the exercise of power for its own sake is wrong.
Now, there’s nothing at all wrong with pointing out logical inconsistencies. But notice: Just pointing out that someone’s wrong isn’t yet a theory of ethics. Much more needs to be said. This is where natural law comes in, especially, because it provides an account of what moral truth is, and how we know it.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
