Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 3:13-22

One of the most controversial passages in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:19-20. One commentary on 1 Peter spends 43 of its 248 pages just one these two verses! Throughout the history of both Jewish and Christian exegesis, there have been many different interpretations of this passage suggested. Here I can only touch on a few of these, and share my view on the subject.

In his commentary on 1 Peter (the one mentioned above), Wayne Grudem lays out five general approaches to the interpretation of this passage. While there are some other variations, these cover many of the alternatives proposed by commentators. These are:

1) Christ preached in spirit through Noah to those who would reject that preaching, thus ending up “in prison” due to their unbelief.

2) Christ preached after His death but before His resurrection to those people who were imprisoned in hell, offering them a second chance of salvation.

3) Christ preached after His death but before His resurrection to those people who were imprisoned in hell, showing them that their condemnation was final.

4) Christ preached after His death to those who repented before they died in Flood, releasing them from Purgatory and bringing them into heaven.

5) Christ preached after His death to the fallen angels in hell, proclaiming His triumph over them and His ultimate victory. (Some commentators link this to a belief that in Genesis 6 the “sons of God” are fallen angels who had relations with human women, and that this pronouncement of judgment was particularly pointed at them.)

Option 2 is clearly out of line with the teaching of the rest of the Bible concerning the finality of death on our decision about Jesus. Option 4 is only viable to someone who believes in Purgatory, which I do not believe is a Biblical teaching. Option 3 doesn’t really connect with the time of Noah, unless it is limited to just those unbelievers, and that seems a rather limited application.

Option 5 is favored by many commentators, both Jewish and Christian (including the author of the Explore the Bible study guide). They argue that the use of the word “spirit” strongly suggests angels/demons rather than people. They also point to some Jewish literature as background to this passage, particularly 1 Enoch. According to this view, Peter is using material familiar to his readers to make his point, and they would have readily understood this as a reference to 1 Enoch and to fallen angels.

While there is much to commend this view, I think when we place the passage in its literary context option 1 is a preferable view. There are certainly issues with this interpretation, as there are with any of those mentioned, but I think this best fits the context, and has support from scholars both ancient and modern. It also does not require Peter’s audience to have a familiarity with literature like 1 Enoch, which may be more consistent with the historical and cultural situation of those readers.

Going back to verse 13, Peter is discussing not only the way a believer should live, but also the readiness of the Christian to proclaim his faith in Jesus. He notes that when we stand for Christ, we may encounter opposition, but that we should live and speak in such a way that those who slander us and reject our message will be put to shame. He then summarizes the gospel, then moves into our problem passage.

Using option 1 as our interpretation, this then becomes an illustration from the Old Testament of someone who proclaimed the message of the Lord faithfully, but whose preaching was rejected for 100 years. In the end, only the tiny number of faithful were saved, while the majority who rejected Noah’s preaching died in the Flood. It was Jesus who preached through Noah, with a message that foreshadowed His own redemption.

Whichever interpretation is correct, we must not allow the controversy to become our focal point. Instead, we should focus on the challenge of being faithful witnesses to the Gospel in a society that will revile us for standing for Jesus. As those who have an eternal hope in Him, we need to be ready to give our reason for our hope, and to proclaim the salvation given to us through Jesus whenever we have the chance.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 3:1-12

If Peter’s teaching on our relationship to authorities makes some Christians uncomfortable, his teaching on the relationship between husbands and wives makes some positively squirm. In our society, any thought of a woman being submissive in any way to her husband is viewed as a throwback to a time when women were considered property and husbands could do whatever they wanted to them. Many is Western culture believe that they have transcended the ethics of the Bible with a more enlightened, egalitarian view of marriage.

I find it interesting that while women are told to voluntarily submit themselves (as the Greek verb tense indicates), husbands are told to honor their wives. A submissive wife might be found in the pagan culture, but an honored wife would be hard to find. Peter does not encourage here merely verbal praise; a husband is to actively give his wife respect and honor. This went against everything that society in the first century believed.

Sadly, it also goes against what many in our 21^st century society believe. Marriage is looked at as a temporary contract by many. A man and woman may marry, but each can go on living their own life and seeking their own interests. A modern wife would never consider voluntarily submitting to her husband’s authority, and a modern husband would not view his wife as a person deserving of honor. Peter’s words not only shook his first readers, but they shake us today.

In many respects, a wife’s submission depends on her husband’s honor. Peter did not intend for women to subject themselves to abuse or mistreatment, or to engage in sinful activities because their husbands told them to. In the case of a woman with an unbelieving husband, she was to live a life that demonstrated what Jesus had done for her. A wife with a believing husband, one who honored her as he should, would have no impediment to following his leadership.

The Biblical standards for our relationships, including our family relationships, often run counter to our culture’s standards. We would be much more comfortable obeying the Lord if we could make His will match the will of our world. We can’t do this, however. As difficult as it may be to live by God’s standards, we are called to do this to show the world just what the power of Jesus can do in our lives and in our relationships with others.

We may have to stand for something that is unpopular. We may be called names and insulted for our beliefs. Even other Christians may urge us to reconsider, and find a way to live like the rest of the world. In this matter, as in any others where the Biblical teaching opposes our cultural norms, we must choose to follow God rather than man. Yet in doing so, we can become a powerful witness for the Lord and the order He ordained as we live out His will and His Word before the eyes of a watching world.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 2:12-25

Peter has some timely advice for those of us who are going through the pain of another interminable presidential campaign in America. It seems no matter which candidate or party someone supports, they claim that the country will be permanently damaged by their opponent, while their candidate is the only hope for any kind of a decent future. This really isn’t something new; it’s just accentuated by the particular qualities (or lack thereof) of the major party candidates.

It wouldn’t matter if both candidates were sterling examples of morality, ethics, and professionalism, however. No human being is capable of meeting all the expectations our modern society places on the President. In many ways, a large number of Americans, including evangelical Christians, have set up our government as a god. The President is viewed as a Messiah, and we place our hope and trust in a person or a party to protect us and uphold what is right. We may not be burning incense on the steps of the White House, but we do look for answers in human institutions.

Peter reminds us of the role of those institutions. He wrote this letter during the reign of Nero, so he wasn’t looking to a stellar example of a just and fair ruler when he told Christians to be subject to the Emperor. I doubt Peter expected Nero to be a champion of Christian virtues or someone who looked to Jesus for guidance. What he did understand is that Nero sat on the throne by the will of God. Not every ruler gains power because of their outstanding virtue in the eyes of the Lord, but all serve a purpose in the unfolding of human history.

No matter who wins an election, we as believers are to be subject to them, as far as we are able. But note that Peter places “honor the Emperor” after “fear God.” The demands of any human institution, including government, are themselves subject to the commands of God. Peter knew this, and would later experience it for himself when he was martyred under the Emperor he is here telling Christians to follow. We must follow the Lord first, before any human institution.

In our country, we have ways to address governmental demands that fly in the face of godly principles. We can vote for new leaders, petition for changes, go to court, and peacefully protest. If we must obey God rather than man, we may also have to face the reality of persecution and punishment for refusing to obey the government. Christians are called to be good citizens of their earthly kingdoms, but to be good citizens of the kingdom of Jesus Christ above all.

So whoever wins the election this November, don’t expect a new messiah, or an earthly kingdom that is the kingdom of God. Rather, prepare to be a good citizen, to pray for your President and other officials, but to fear God first, then honor the rulers. And remember, no matter who is the President, Jesus is still the King.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 2:1-10

Peter uses many quotes from the Old Testament in his epistle. This is natural, since what we call the Old Testament was the Scriptures not only for Jews, but for all the new Gentile believers who were responding to the gospel. There was no set of writings in the early days of the church that were already recognized as part of the Biblical canon, although recognition of a number of apostolic writings as Scripture arose very early. (We’ll talk about this more in 2 Peter.) Peter is clearly familiar with the Scriptures and uses them both to make his theological and practical points and to illustrate truth.

In 1 Peter 2:10, Peter doesn’t directly quote an Old Testament passage, but he does make a strong reference to one. This verse is influenced by the names the Lord tells Hosea to give his children in chapters 1 and 2 of his prophecy. There, the children, probably born as the result of an adulterous affair by his wife Gomer, symbolized the Lord’s rejection of Israel as His people. Their unfaithfulness caused Him to turn away from His chosen people. Yet even in this rejection, God states that He cannot entirely give up on them, and that one day they will once again be His people and He will be their God.

This was a comforting promise to Israel, but it may have left Gentiles wondering how they fit in to the people of God. Did you have to become a Jew? Were Gentiles second-class Christians? Peter uses the experience of Hosea and the words of his prophecy to assure all believers, Jew and Gentile, that they were now part of God’s people. They had been called out of darkness into light, received God’s mercy through Jesus, and were now included as part of the people of God.

Some have seen this passage as one that indicates that the church has replaced Israel as the people of God permanently. In this view, Israel served as God’s people until the cross, but since the death and resurrection of Christ the church has now become the object of all of God’s promises to Israel as a kind of new “chosen people.” I believe that the very fact of Peter’s using Hosea as his cue in this verse shows the opposite: that while the church is certainly the people of God, He is also not letting go of Israel forever.

The key point here is that all believers, who by nature are sinful and deserving of God’s rejection, have been brought into the people of God through Jesus’ work. By grace we have been shown mercy, and through that mercy we gain a great salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We do not have to fear what our status before the Lord is if we have put our trust and hope in the One who calls us out of the darkness of sin and into the light of His eternal presence.

Explore the Bible: Acts 9:10-19

Occasionally as we read through the historical narratives of the Bible we come across a person who enters the story for just a brief mention, then is never heard of again in Scripture. Some of these are figures of far more importance to redemptive history than their short notice indicates. One of these is found in Acts 9, right in the middle of the narrative of Saul’s conversion.

Ananias was a follower of Jesus who lived in Damascus. Later church tradition counts him as one of the 72 disciples Jesus sent out during His ministry, but the Bible tells us nothing of his background. We don’t even know if he was in Damascus due to the dispersion of the church due to persecution or whether he had already been a resident of the city, who had perhaps visited Jerusalem around Pentecost. What the Bible does tell us, in Paul’s later retelling of his conversion in Acts 22, is that Ananias was “a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by the Jews who lived there” (verse 12).

Jesus appeared to Ananias in a vision; this one was less dramatic than Saul’s, perhaps because Ananias was prepared to listen to his Lord. Jesus’ instructions are straightforward, but Ananias pauses when he hears them. While he may never have seen Saul personally, he certainly has heard a lot about him, even understanding that Saul could have him arrested and brought back to Jerusalem. Ananias may not have been balking at his assignment, but trying to make sure he was hearing correctly. Jesus was sending him to the church’s chief adversary? And he was supposed to perform a miraculous healing on that man? I think it safe to say no one else in the history of the church has been given a mission like that!

Jesus not only confirmed His call, He added a message that Ananias would pass on to Saul (see Acts 22:14-16). Saul, the devout Jew and rabbinic scholar, was to become the Lord’s choice to take His gospel to the Gentiles. In addition, Jesus added that Saul, who had caused so much suffering to the church, would himself suffer much for the sake of the Lord.

Ananias went and fulfilled his divine commission. He went to the place Saul was staying and found him fasting, probably along with prayer. Ananias announced the Lord’s message and laid his hands on Saul, which restored his sight. While we aren’t told details of Saul’s response, he apparently was immediately baptized, even before he broke his fast. Ananias was convinced that Saul was a genuine believer and follower of Jesus.

While God is in control of all of history, and our human efforts cannot thwart His will, it is interesting to think about what the short mission of Ananias to Saul, who later became known as Paul, meant to the history of the church. Sixteen of the 27 books of the New Testament owe their writing to Paul: his own 13 epistles, plus three book penned by writers influenced by Paul (Hebrews, Luke, and Acts). A large number of churches were directly planted by Paul, and others were strengthened by his ministry among them. Paul’s writings changed the lives of many later Christians who became powerful influences for Christ in their own times and beyond. Paul is viewed as perhaps the Christian with the greatest influence of anyone after Jesus Himself, yet it was Ananias who brought Paul the gospel message he needed to hear and who helped him understand the changes Jesus would bring to his life.

Sometimes when we look at the great figures of the Bible, we can be overwhelmed. Even though we understand that all of those heroes had their weaknesses (even Paul), we look at their powerful influence and wonder how we could ever be like them. When we think like this, we need to remember that we are not all called to be Pauls. For many of us, our call is more like that to Ananias: listen to Jesus, then go and minister in His name where we are placed. No matter what you are called to do by Christ, you can have a profound influence on the world through your faithful obedience.

The Baptist Faith and Message: IIA. God the Father (Part 2)

“God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.”

One of the glib truths often cited by people is that “we all have God as our Father, and we are all brothers.” There is an assumption that since God has created us, He also remains in a fatherly relationship to every person. It sounds so nice to our ears we just assume that the Bible teaches it.

Unfortunately, this isn’t what the Bible says. God is indeed a Father. First and foremost, He is the Father of Jesus, the Son, within the economy of the Trinity. The Bible reveals to us that those who stand in a right relationship to God are also His children. Jesus even taught His disciples to call God “Our Father” in prayer. Those who have their faith in Jesus Christ are adopted by God into His family (Romans 8:14-15). To do this, we must repent of our sin and rebellion against God and accept His way of salvation.

This is part of the meaning of the term “born again” as Jesus used it in John 3. Our original birth brought us into the world, but as part of humanity we came with a sinful human nature. (We’ll look at this topic more in a later post.) We aren’t just sinners by birth, though; we are also sinners by choice. We freely choose to pursue what we want rather than what God expects and commands from us. As a result, we are not part of the family of God, although we are a part of the human family. The “brotherhood of man” is a truth, but not one that brings us into a right relationship with God.

To our Western culture, this sounds bigoted, narrow-minded, and just plain wrong. If we say some people are not children of God, we may insult them or hurt their self-image. It doesn’t matter what is true, just what makes people feel good about themselves. People don’t want to face the consequences of their action, so they assume God will overlook “a few little faults” and let them into His family and into heaven.

It doesn’t matter how people feel about what the Bible reveals, however. If it is true that we must be “born again” to become part of God’s family, then we cannot find any other way to reach that goal. We cannot be part of a family whose Father we reject and openly defy. And frankly, why would you want to spend eternity with the One whose word you ignored and whose standards you broke whenever you chose?

Some might argue that even an earthly father can be reconciled to children who have rejected him or ignored what he wanted. Wouldn’t God be even more likely to want reconciliation? That is absolutely true. God has made it possible for us to be reconciled to Him through the work of Jesus. He won’t force us to be reconciled, though. We must choose to humble ourselves, repent of our sins, and accept His chosen means of reconciliation. Just as an earthly father can’t be reconciled to a child who refuses his advances, so God cannot be reconciled to those who reject His offer of reconciliation.

Now God does have a fatherly attitude toward all of humanity. He provides providential care for all, and He has made a way for all to become His children. But His fatherly attention is meant to draw us into a relationship with Him through Christ. Only then will He truly be our Father, as His Word reveals to us. 

Explore the Bible: Acts 8:9-24

The character of Simon the magician (called Simon Magus in early Christian literature) appears suddenly on the scene here in Acts 8, and just as quickly exits the Biblical narrative. Yet Simon gained a wide reputation among the early Christian writers as the father of Gnosticism and indeed many (if not all) heresies. We see a description of him in Rome attempting to lead people astray as early as the First Apology of Justin Martyr (chapter 26), where he is described as a wonder worker followed by many Samaritans and others. The early church father Irenaeus devotes several chapters of his Against Heresies to addressing Simon and his followers. Some apocryphal works describe multiple confrontations between Peter and Simon in Rome, with Peter always coming out on top. But how much of this early church tradition is true?

There is no doubt that writers like Justin and Irenaeus believed that they were reporting true accounts of Simon’s life and teaching. By the time of Irenaeus, a work purportedly by Simon, called The Great Declaration, was circulating among the Gnostics. Scholars who have studied this work see it as a precursor to what later became the school of the Gnostic teacher Valentinus, so it may have roots that go back much earlier. It seems likely that there was ahistorical Simon who was indeed a teacher of an early form of what later became known as Gnosticism. The question is, was this Simon the same as the Simon of the book of Acts?

As with many questions of this type, there is much debate, and some disagreement. Some believe that Simon, given his background and even his nickname, could certainly have become a leader of a heretical sect that took some of the teachings of Christianity and merged them with magical and philosophical ideas to create a new religion. Such a religion may well have prided itself on its own secret gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, and the term which gives us the name Gnotiscism), and attempted to promote itself as the true knowledge passed on by Jesus. The willingness of some scholars even today to find in Gnosticism a legitimate alternate form of Christianity shows us how powerful this draw can be.

Other scholars believe that the Simon who wrote and taught what we see in Justin and Irenaeus was a different person who probably lived somewhat later than the Simon of Acts. The story in Acts 8 led Christians to think of the two as the same person, so the later Simon was thought to be the one that Luke wrote about. Even with this idea, there is still thought to be an actual historical Simon. It is interesting that scholars who are skeptical that the teaching of the Gospels tells us anything true about Jesus are often willing to accept the 2^nd century Great Declaration as the actual teaching of Simon!

I think it quite possible that Simon, whose belief in the apostles’ teaching appears in Acts to be little more than a belief in a more powerful magic than he knew, could well have taken a few elements of what Philip, Peter, and John taught and merged them with his own magical beliefs to form a religion of his own, perhaps even one that claimed to follow secret teachings of this Jesus. Such teaching could have been developed by his followers (and I don’t rule out that one could even have been a later Simon) and merged with the growing Gnostic trends that came from Greek philosophy, Christian terminology, and other first and second century influences.

The story of Simon in Acts 8 isn’t so much about who he was as it is about what he was: a man who failed to grasp the truth of the grace of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the power of the Spirit. Simon had some kind of belief, even going so far as to be baptized, but he clearly didn’t understand the core of the gospel, the free gift of salvation through Jesus and the free gift of the indwelling Spirit. Peter warned him, and gave him the opportunity to repent, but we never read that Simon did. The stories that rose about him in later Christian tradition suggest he never came to repentance. We must be sure that our “belief” isn’t just an outward show in church or in some habitual practices, but that we have truly come to know the life-giving freedom that comes in Christ through the message of the gospel.