VW: two epistles of Peter

A Voice in the
Wilderness

site navigation

free newsletter

two epistles of Peter

Peter: -Topics

01

1 Peter

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 Peter

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Introduction - (1Peter 1:1)

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the sojourners of the Dispersion" (vs1)

In this introduction we will attempt to address several different things, to set the stage for the rest of this series, both of 1Peter and also 2Peter. While the two epistles were written to two different groups of Believers, and likely separated by a few years in their writings; in a very real sense the two books also belong together because they address the Church, first from the Jewish perspective, and then Gentile. Thus, we'll cover whatever introductory remarks are appropriate for both books now, and when we arrive at 2Peter, we'll just jump into it, in sequence; if the Lord doesn't come for the Church before we get that far.

In our present western culture letters are first addressed 'to' the recipient; the message is written; and finally the writer closes the letter by signing their name. During the times when NT epistles were written the convention was to first indicate the writer, and then for whom the message is intended. Somewhat like when I drove transit bus back in the mid 70s, the caller on the radio would first identify themself, and then say who they were calling... whether one of the other buses, or the dispatch office; and then whoever was being called would pick up their mic and respond.

For these epistles the writer is Peter. We could say a lot about Peter, but if we were to start, where would we stop? An entire series could be compiled on him, alone. So, we'll leave his background and credentials in the Gospels and Acts.

According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, it is speculated that 1Peter was written around 63-67AD. 2Peter likely in 68AD. And it is speculated that he died in 68 or 69AD. The fact that he mentions "Babylon" in 5:13 suggests to some that 1Peter was written from Babylon. Nothing is said in 2Peter to suggest its location of origin. Easton's Dictionary suggests that Peter was never in Rome, while Smith's says he was, also suggesting that 2Peter was written from Rome. Tradition says that Peter had been in Rome, and was thinking to leave; but on the road out of town the Lord Jesus appeared to him, saying to him something on the order of: Your work isn't finished. Whereupon Peter 'understood' what was required of him, and returned into the city; and as he was about to be crucified (in martyrdom), the famous words he is alleged to have said: I'm not worthy to be crucified -as- my Lord was. Crucify me upside down!

But notice a couple of things Peter says about himself; and also something he does NOT say. In 1Pt1:1 he calls himself an "apostle" of Jesus Christ. In 2Pt1:1 he calls himself a "bondservant and apostle". What is the thing he does NOT say? He does not call himself a "bishop", "holy father" or "pope". Jesus had commanded, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven." (Mt23:9)

What is an apostle? The dictionary has definitions for both "christian" and "mormon" beliefs. But why is the expression appropriate? Why did Jesus call the Twelve, apostles? (Lk6:13) Generically, an apostle is "one who pioneers an important reform movement, cause, or belief" Is this not an appropriate term for Peter: he was the primary speaker on the day of Pentecost, as the Church was beginning. (Ac2) And the rest of the Eleven were also giving themselves to the ministry of the Word in those days, teaching. (Ac6:4) Even though Paul became the apostle "to the Gentiles" (Rom11:13), it was Peter who first broke the Jew/Gentile barrier at Cornelius' house. (Ac10,15:7-14) Thus, indeed, Peter was a leader and forger of the new path for what became the Church of Jesus Christ.

But notice also, Peter, to the Gentiles, uses a term that Paul did regularly, calling himself a "bondservant". (Ro1:1, Ga1:10, Tit1:5, etc) A place of lowliness and servitude. Jesus had also exhorted, "whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant" (Mk10:43); thus they were following in the ways of Jesus, who Himself took on the "form of a bondservant" (Php2:7)

Now this is totally opposite of what Babylon of Rome attributes to him, when they allege him to have been the "first pope". Popes are typically bedecked as royalty, wearing crowns, sitting on thrones, living in laps of luxury. Priests also typically often tend to behave as strutting roosters, ruling the roost. And yes, sadly, many protestants and fundamental baptists also believe in the (ruling) authority of the pastor, as they exhort parishioners to 'obey' their pastor; and many pastors lord it over them. When we get to the passage, we will see how Peter the "elder" also exhorts pastors not to exercise "dominion" over the flock. (1Pt5:3) Peter of the Bible is not the same mystical, imaginary "peter" of Rome. Babylon of Rome did not yet exist with their stolen false label of "christian" in Peter's day. The false "christian" label for Babylon would not come about until several centuries later. Thus, even logic tells any rational honest person that Peter could not possibly have been the "first pope".

These epistles are written to two different groups, with differing emphases and flavors. 1Peter is written to the "sojourners of the Disperson". 2Peter is written to "those who have obtained like precious faith with us" (2Pt1:1) Who are the "Dispersion"; otherwise also often called "Diaspora"? Jews. If 1Peter is written to Jews, and 2Peter is written to those who are in the Faith "with us"; who is "us"? Jews. Who obtained, and shares in the same faith with Israel? Gentiles.

"Therefore remember that you, being Gentiles in the flesh; who are called uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision made in the flesh by hands; that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been made near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity." (Eph2:11-16)

This is one of the classic passages on this subject, written by Paul. And Peter, in writing to the Gentiles, endorses Paul's writings. (2Pt3:15) Notice that Peter follows in Paul's expression regarding the Gospel, that it was "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Gentile)" (Rom1:16, 2:9-10) And even though Paul (a Jewish pharisee) was the apostle to the Gentiles, whenever he went to a new place, he would always -first- seek out the synagogues. (Ac13:5,42, 14:1, 17:1,10, 18:19, etc) And if you look up these passages, you will also notice that when he would leave the synagogues, that the Gentiles would also follow him, wanting to hear more regarding the Gospel. But when he went somewhere, he always went 'first' to the synagogues (of the Jews); and then it says that the Gentiles -also- were interested. When persecution arose, it was typically the "Jews who were not persuaded" towards Paul's message. (Ac17:5) And so, as many Jews kept rejecting Christ, Paul's message was, "since you thrust it away, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." (Ac13:46 see also: Ac18:6, 22:21, 28:28)

There are some who try to discredit Paul's ministry and NT writings. There are others who try to say that Peter's ministry was to the Jews -but- Paul was to the Gentiles. Well, certainly, these were their emphases. (Ga2:9) But if we can see how Peter, in these two epistles addresses first one, and then the other, perhaps those detractors can accept that Paul's ministry was legitimate.

Understanding the two audiences/recipients of these two epistles will help us understand some of the things that are written; some things over which Replacement theologians tend to stumble, and which Reformed theologians "twist...to their own destruction". (2Pt3:16) God's covenants with OT Israel were different from Jesus' "New Covenant" (Mt26:18) to the Church which He "washed...from our sins in His own blood" (Rev1:5) To the Jews he refers to the "lamb without blemish and without spot" (1Pt1:19); and to the Gentiles "like precious faith", "divine power", "precious promises", "divine nature". (2Pt1:1-4)

The Law came through Moses, but "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn1:17) The Law involves judgment and death. Grace involves expectation and life.

Due to Israel's continual rebellions against God, He had to punish them often. The very fact that they are called the "Dispersion" is a label of God's judgment. People often talk of the "ten lost tribes". The ten tribes were never "lost". If we keep in mind that these were written prior to 70AD, that means Judah was still a nation; Rome had not yet come and destroyed it and Jerusalem. Thus, these listed in vs1 are the dispersion prior to Judah's exile to Babylon, and then return. The ten northern tribes were carried off to Syria; and these places listed are merely an extension of that exile. Of course, we can know that others are found here and there throughout the world, in Africa, India, China and likely Japan, not to mention the US, and particularly New York City.

One of the characteristics of the Diaspora is what has become a 'byword' (De28:37, 1Ki9:7, etc)... the "wandering Jew". History has shown persecutions, pogroms, exiles, etc. In some cases it is romanticized in movies such as Fiddler on the Roof. And likely most notorious of them all, the "Holocaust" of WW2. Thus, 1Peter is filled with references to expressions like: trials (1:6), test by fire (1:7), endures grief (2:19), falsely accuse (3:16), fiery trial (4:12), afflictions (5:9) etc

On the other hand, through God's grace, the Gentile Church in 2Peter is addressed with words like: like precious faith (1:1), precious promises 1:4), power and coming of our Lord (1:16), light that shines (1:19), hastening unto the coming of the Day of God (3:12), new heavens, new earth, righteousness (3:13), looking forward to (3:14).

Both epistles are written to the Church... Believers. But they are written from different perspectives. Jews come from a background of Law, dealing with death for infractions, showing man's utter failure in being able to keep it. (Rom8:3) Gentiles come from a background of no law. (Rom2:14) When Israel demonstrated that sinful man was not able to keep the Law, God sent Jesus to condemn sin in the flesh, and to provide Salvation; thus, changing the requirements for righteousness from the flesh (keeping the Law Le18:5) to the Spirit (Rom8:3-4) through the "accounting" of "righteousness" (Rom4:3) as a "gift of God" (Eph2:8)

So, with that as introduction, comparing the two epistles, hopefully we can keep these things in perspective as we progress through the series.

Election & Sprinkling - (1Peter 1:2)

"elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied." (vs2)

So... let's address "replacement theology" first, shall we, and get it out of the way, so it doesn't cloud our understanding of the rest of this series.

Yes, the terms "election/appointed" are used a couple times regarding Gentiles (Ac13:48, 2Pt1:10), and we'll address it in 2Peter when we get there; but predominantly the term "elect" (chosen) is used of Jews. In this passage, remember to whom Peter is writing? The "sojourners of the Dispersion" (vs1) In common vernacular, the "Diaspora" It is such a universally understood term, it is known world-wide as referring to Jews. When historians of the world speak of "Diaspora", they are never -confused- about it, as though it might refer to something called "church". Historians never consider that "Diaspora" might refer to Gentiles, except as the word might generically refer to the "dispersion of -something- (anything) that used to be homogenous". But even in the dictionary, the first two definitions are related to "Israel", in agreement with the OT accounts; that aforementioned "by word".

Thus, in essence, Peter is saying: I'm writing to you, Jews, the elect.

The "church" was never 'scattered' to the winds like stubble (Jer13:24); to suggest that they, then, need to be "gathered" (Mt24:31) When Jesus spoke of gathering the "elect", the (Gentile) Church didn't yet exist. Why would Jeremiah have spoken of the scattering of a non-existent entity several centuries away from his 'then-current' audience? Not to mention the fact that Gentiles, by definition, not being Jews, -are- scattered around the entire world; that's what Gentiles are... -people- who live in all quadrants of earth, who are not Jews, by definition. But he was addressing the "king and queen mother" and "Judah" as they were going into captivity. (Jer13:18-19) It is -ISRAEL- whom God called His "elect". (1Ch16:13, Is45:4) And in case there should be confusion, just to be clear, Israel is also "Jacob"; something Paul never mentions in Romans & Galatians when addressing the "faith of Abraham", except as it relates to -unbelieving- Israel. (Rom11:26) The Diaspora is the "seed" (flesh) of Abraham; the believing Church (both Jew and Gentile) is the "faith" (spirit) of Abraham. There are individuals from within the Diaspora who are also part of Christ's Church; but they are not going to be "gathered"; they (if alive) will be Raptured, along with Gentile Believers. The Diaspora (elect) to be 'gathered' will be those who have been in unbelief. Hopefully this is clear?

Also... if the Church has "replaced" Israel, then why would Peter make a point to write from -both- perspectives? To -both- audiences? That would be silly! To write to that which 'replaced' Israel, and then in 2Peter to those who also joined "with" (2Pt1:1) that which replaced Israel? If the Church 'replaced' Israel, then -who- is the audience Peter addresses in 2Peter? And what is the whole point of Eph2:11-16 we looked at in the previous lesson?

However, even though Paul observes that "not all those of Israel are Israel" (Rom9:6b), there are those Jews (the circumcision) who -do- believe "from the heart" and "in the Spirit" (Rom2:28-29) Let's never forget that the Church in Acts started out totally Jewish. Pentecost was an OT 'Jewish' feast/observance, not some demonic charismatic event. (What charismatics do is not the same as what happened in Acts ch2) And Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was Jewish. And if it wasn't for the Jews, we would not have the Scriptures. (Rom3:1-2) No. Babylon of Rome was not commissioned to preserve the Scriptures in some mysterious dark archives; Israel was, as it was read and copied regularly.

One of my neighbors, who has been watching TV's "Kid Nation" told how the kids had 'won' a choice of two prizes: a miniature golf course, or a library of "holy books". The kids opted for the books; and apparently they started reading the Bible and Torah, side-by-side, one following the other, and were amazed that the two were the "same". Exactly right! The Pentateuch (first five books) of the Bible, and the Torah are the same. The entire Bible (except for possibly a couple of the NT Gospels and Acts) was written by Jews; yes... including the Church's New Testament.

Thus, it is -most- appropriate to speak of -believing- Jews in connection with the Church. As Ephesians ch2 says, -both- Jew -and- Gentile are 'united' together in reconciliation out of sin, unto God.

And so, as Peter summarizes to Jews this Believer relationship with God, he uses OT Jewish Tabernacle/Temple imagery: "sprinkling of the blood"

We won't look up all the passages now, but if you check out Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are multitudes of mentions of things done with the "blood of bulls and goats" (Heb9:13) Some blood was 'poured' out on the ground next to the altar. Solomon's temple was designed to where there was a drainage system to carry all that blood away. When worship utensils were dedicated, some of the blood would be put in the palm of one hand, the priest's finger would be dipped in blood and it would be sprinkled on them. Annually blood was taken into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled on the Mercy Seat. When the priests were dedicated/commissioned for service, blood was dabbed on their right thumb, right big toe and right ear lobe.

When Jesus died on the cross, and His blood was shed, He was fulfilling all these OT "shadow[s] of things to come" (Col2:16-17, Heb10:1) "And according to the Law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb9:22) But "it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin" (Heb10:4) because they are mere -animals-. Human sin needed to be atoned with perfect human blood, thus Jesus "offered Himself" (Heb9:14) in accordance with those OT rituals. Those final days before His crucifixion He was found, every day, at the temple, just as the Passover lambs were, to verify that they were "without blemish and without spot" (vs19) Jesus, "our Passover, was sacrificed for us" (1Co5:7)

And as Paul says, Jesus "became -obedient- unto death, even the death of the cross." (Php2:8b)

Please notice how all Three of the God Head are represented in Salvation. God the Father is the one who elects. It is His 'foreknowledge' that discerns "who are His" (2Tim2:19), and in His foreknowledge He 'elects' and "draws" the sinner. (Jn6:44) The Father is the one who invites "Come now and let us reason together" (Is1:18), and says: "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him." (Lk9:35)

When the sinner has been cleansed, it is the Holy Spirit who makes holy. It is the Holy Spirit who "seals" the Believer with "promise" (Eph1:13) Something that is promised to Eternal Life... it is 'set aside' specifically for that person. It is like a "lay-away" plan. We don't yet have the fulfillment of Eternal Life in Heaven. (vs8) We are yet "flesh and blood" and in physical "corruption". (1Co15:50) We have not yet experienced the "redemption of the body" (Rom8:23) But that is all preserved and set aside with our name on it, with the Holy Spirit's seal guarantying it. Something that is "set aside", by definition, "holy". That specific guarantee, with our name which is in the Book of Life (Php4:3, Rev3:5, 21:27, 22:19), is only -our- name, and nobody else. It is reserved, set aside, holy, for us who believe.

And finally, the One who paid the ultimate price for our redemption: Jesus Christ. He is the one who "loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood" (Rev1:5)

It is often said that the OT was about the "Law", and the NT is about "Grace". But in Jesus Christ grace is applicable to both Jew and Gentile. In the OT, while they were continually offering animals in sacrifice, they visually saw Law. But even within the Law, those animals were a foreshadow of Grace that would be fulfilled through Jesus Christ. In the OT they saw Law through Moses, but "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (Jn1:17b) As Jesus also proclaims about Himself,

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (Jn14:6)

Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (Jn14:27)

As we continue through this epistle we will see many mentions of trials and sufferings. But they will also be compared to Jesus' sufferings. Thus, if we find ourselves in times of trouble, we can remember how Jesus blazed that trail first, understand His power, and rest in His peace.

Thus: "Grace to you and peace be multiplied"

Living Hope - (1Peter 1:3-5)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (vs3)

What is the one thing that uniquely distinguishes [C]hristianity from all other religions? (And from here-on out in this series, when we use the term "Christian", we are going to assume we are speaking of Believers in Jesus Christ, not all the pretend/false religions and cults of Babylon, Mormonism, Charismania, Apostasy, etc. This is a -Biblical- study series...TO and FOR Believers) The RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ.

Buddha died. Confucius is dead. So is Mohammed. The Japanese Shinto emperor-gods died in due course with old age. All the Greek and Roman deities were dead and mythologized.

One thing the Romans took note of Paul's preaching was about Jesus: "who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." (Ac25:19) It was also this teaching the unbelieving Jewish temple rulers persecuted the disciples for: "being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead." (Ac4:2)

Jewish rulers demanded Jesus' crucifixion, but Rome did the deed. Then, the Romans considered His resurrection a curiosity, but its proclamation certainly nothing worthy of the death penalty. (Ac26:31) But the Jewish rulers, those appointed to represent God to the people, rejected the Resurrection, and tried to kill those proclaiming it. As Stephen proclaimed: "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they, who received the Law by the command of angels and did not keep it, killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers" (Ac7:52-53) they, then, proceeded to stone Stephen.

If all Jesus did was to -die-, and -remained- dead, how could He possibly fulfill His promises for Eternal Life (Jn10:28) and a place "prepared" in Heaven? (Jn14:3) If Jesus, Himself, could not be alive, then how can He give life to His followers? As we observed from Ecclesiastes... a dead person doesn't do or know anything. (Ec9:5) Jesus didn't say that, after He died, somebody -else- would give Life. But no! He, Himself, was promising to give Eternal Life.

"I give them Eternal Life, and they shall never perish" (Jn10:28)

Furthermore, of His life Jesus made the claim:

"No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. This precept I have received from My Father." (Jn10:18)

Thus, as we mentioned in the previous lesson, that our Eternal Life is a "promise" and "lay-away plan", our hope is a "living hope". It is not like the religions of the world where their prime leader died, and so people hope for 'something', they know not what, when they die. But we who believe know that Jesus is -alive- at the Father's right hand (3:22); and so, at death, we are going -to- Him, to be -with- Him; to be "home with the Lord" (2Co5:8)

Thus the imagery of immersion: Going down into the water, and being raised back out. Being "buried with Him through immersion into death" and then "raised from the dead...to newness of life" in the "likeness" of His resurrection, that we also might "live with Him" (Rom6:4-10)

Those who "sprinkle" for "baptism" are stuck in the OT. Sprinkling (vs2) is the OT ritual of the "shadow". In the OT, even though they had the waving of the sheaf of the firstfruits (Lev23:11, 1Co15:20,23), they didn't understand what "rising from the dead might mean" (Mk9:10) And so, that is what Peter is explaining to them. ("them"? Remember? He is writing to the "sojourners of the Dispersion")

So then, if Jesus is alive, is it not easy to understand how our inheritance is "incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away" (vs4) When something dies, it rots, becomes putrid, and eventually dissolves back into the ground, "dust...to dust". (Gen3:19, Ec3:20) For something to not become corrupted and rotten, it needs to stay alive. Thus, our living hope; and guarantee.

First, let's look at this word "inheritance". What is an inheritance? Does the recipient yet possess it? The inheritance is received at the death of the giver. Since Jesus is again alive, the direct correlary somewhat falls apart; except for the part where the recipient must 'wait' for it. The heir does not receive the inheritance immediately. But the legal document, notorized and sealed, the "will", is the "promise". On earth inheritances consist of property, money, and other things. Our "living hope" is the promise of Eternal Life.

We do not yet possess Eternal Life. Does this sound like false doctrine? Paul tells us that "flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption" (1Co15:50) As long as we are on this earth, we are as yet "flesh and blood". We are yet the "seed" that hasn't died and then sprung into the plant. (1Co15:35-42) But Eternal Life is "reserved in Heaven for you" (vs4) Remember: we spoke of the "lay-away plan".

And this is what the Holy Spirit does. The Holy Spirit dwells in us (Rom8:9) through the birth "from above" (Jn3:3,8) The Holy Spirit indwelling is the "seal" of that 'will' of the inheritance. (Eph1:13) The fact that we have the Holy Spirit in us is the "earnest" of the inheritance. (Eph1:14) The earnest is the down-payment, indicating honest full intention of carrying through with the deal. And how long does the "seal" last? "...until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Eph1:14) The "redemption of our body" (Rom8:23) Among other things the Spirit does, that is one of the key duties of the Holy Spirit. Guarantying our promised Eternal Life.

Jesus promised, "I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you." (Jn14:18) And this He does through the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised: "I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth..." (Jn15:26)

There are some who teach that a person is saved, and -then-, on some later occasion, the Holy Spirit comes upon them. Such a doctrine, by definition, is a false doctrine. If a person is 'waiting' for the Holy Spirit to come, by definition, they do not 'have' the Holy Spirit; and they do not belong to God. (Rom8:9) Logic: If somebody has something, they are not waiting for it, because they have it. By definition.

When a person has the Holy Spirit, they KNOW it. And thereby is their confidence of the inheritance which is "reserved" in Heaven.

And how is the Holy Spirit able to make the guarantee? A lot of people try to separate out the God-head: the Father does this, Jesus does that and the Holy Spirit does this other thing... and they will often 'pray' to the Holy Spirit as though a -lone- entity. But just as Jesus said that He did not do anything apart from the Father (Jn8:29), the "power" behind the Holy Spirit's work is the Father. God (the Father) is "everything in all things" (1Co15:28b) Jesus sits at the Father's "right hand" (Ac2:33) The one who sits to the 'right' of someone is 'less' than the one to whose right they are sitting.

The Father draws the sinner to salvation, having sent His Son to pay sin's penalty, and sending the Holy Spirit to preserve the Believer. But just as God is Christ's "head" (1Co11:3), so God is also the "power" for preservation.

"...through faith". Even this faith is a "gift" from God. (Eph2:8) It all comes from God. He is "everything in all things".

So... 'when' do we receive Salvation? It is "revealed" (vs5) Perhaps another question is in order: 'How' will we know when we have received it?

The key is the word "revealed". Do we know of anything (or anyone) else that is to be 'revealed'?

There is coming a day that is called the "revelation of Jesus Christ". True Believers look for His "appearing" (Tit2:13) The event is called "his appearing", as distinguished from "his kingdom" (2Tim4:1) At His "revealing" is when we become changed to be "like Him" (1Jn3:2) Paul calls it the "last trumpet" (1Co15:52); Peter calls it the "last time" (vs5) Both, the same event.

And so the event, in revealing Jesus Christ, also reveals His work. When a person wants to know something about another person, that person's identity is often/usually associated with what they -do-: their job, their vocation, their leisure pursuits, etc.

Jesus was sent to earth, by the Father, to -save- the sinner who would repent and receive Him. Believers collectively are called the "Church". The Church, in that day, is "presented" (Eph5:27); as Jesus explains it...

"Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will also confess him before the angels of God." (Lk12:8)

"He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (Rev3:5)

We will know we have arrived, and have received, when we hear Jesus (the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world Jn1:29) proclaim to the Father and the whole universe of angels, from His Book, our name/s, written in the "Lamb's Book of Life" (Re21:27)

And the voice like a trumpet proclaims to us, "Come up here!" (Rev4:1)

What is our worth, by which we are privy to this grand event? "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells..." (Rom7:18)

It is God's "abundant mercy" (vs3) Another way of saying, "grace". What is grace? The simple definition: "unmerited favor". Contrary to today's prevailing winds of doctrine, the sinner is -worth- 'nothing'. Thus God through Jesus Christ "has begotten" us. What does it mean to "beget"? That is a term related to "birth". Being born. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, "...unless one is born from Above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of God" (Jn3:3)

This is why all the praise goes to God. We cannot save ourselves. We cannot give birth to ourselves. We cannot make ourselves into righteous beings; we don't have that ability. We cannot go and scoop some specified -amount- of "the spirit" into ourselves. Many people have this notion of the Holy Spirit that "it" is a "commodity" of some sort, or a 'power' or 'force' or 'energy'...some sort of 'substance'...some 'thing' that we grab, plug into, to get 'charged up'.

The Holy Spirit is a 'person' or 'entity'...just like the Father and Son. We do not go someplace and "get" -some- spirit. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to us, from the Father. Everything is done -by- God. He takes a vile sinner, gives birth to a "new creation" (2Co5:17), gives the promise and guarantee of Eternal Life.

All the sinner must do is to "receive" the gift, and we become "children of God" when we "believe in His name" (Jn1:12)

Thus: "Blessed" is God the Father! (vs3a) Praise and glory to Him.

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created." (Rev4:11)

And also: "...Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!" (Rev5:12)

Greatly Rejoice - (1Peter 1:6-9)

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials" (vs6)

"In this..." What is "this"? How is a Bible study conducted? One principle is to keep 'contexts' together properly. What -just- preceded this sentence? The "living hope" that is "reserved in Heaven" and "ready to be revealed". "This" is the contextually understood 'promise' of Eternal Life.

When we think of our future change to incorruption, and the application of Eternal Life, what is our view of it? Judging by how some people live, one would think they were totally unaware of it, because nothing changes, as they go along in life, "Ho hum!" Some, having little aches and pains, whine about the "cross that [they] must bear".

But Peter describes: You GREATLY REJOICE.

What does it mean to rejoice? Does this mean that the song leader sees all those "smiling faces out there"? And if they are not smiling, to cough up some more fast, lively, perky "praise songs", and have people stand, dance and wiggle around provocatively sensuously? Party time?

Sometimes rejoicing happens with tears. By way of personal example: My life has had various experiences, some good, some bad. Times of faithfulness to God, and also times of (in ignorance) apostasy. There was an event some years ago, likely -the- 'lowest' point in my entire life. But through that event, the Lord got my attention regarding the apostasy in which I had been immersed; I confessed and received forgiveness; and started a completely new chapter of existence; as though everything before that event was one person, and everything since, a totally new person. Almost as dramatic an event as Salvation itself. As I was growing on 'this' side of that event, I would have occasions where I was totally innundated with emotions of God's 'love' for me. And I will tell you... I was not running, jumping, shouting it to everybody... but I was in profound uncontrollable tears. Knowing God's love, and tears? Indeed! Was I rejoicing? Indeed! Rejoicing with tears? Indeed!

Paul and Silas had just been beaten and were in the stocks in prison. Hurting and uncomfortable, what were the other prisoners hearing? Crying, moans and whining? No: "praying and singing of hymns" (Ac16:25)

My trial was to bring me back close to God. Other trials are to test the Believer, to see of what sort they are. When adversity comes, will they cut and run? Many have been the testimonies that, when a Believer was being tortured or martyred, unbelievers observing their steadfastness, seeing what their Faith meant to them... turned from their sin and received Christ.

"..that the testing of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found unto praise, honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (vs7)

How is gold (or any precious metal) refined into a pure state? By fire. It is melted, the impurities rise to the top, get scraped away, leaving the pure metal.

What do we want to present to Christ at His coming? Tarnished, dirty, spoiled works? Or pure, spotless, clean lives? Recently I ate at a Chinese buffet where the tables had been wiped, apparently many tables, with -one- cloth. Sticky! I see this at Pizza Hut frequently, where the cloth is used to wipe down several tables and chairs. By the time that cloth is wiping the last table, the cloth has collected various debris, and food remnants, and the last table can end up, perhaps "clean" to the eye... but when one sits down and rests their arms on it...it is 'sticky'. It is not really clean. When Jesus is revealed, do we want Him to find a 'sticky' table? Or a clean one? To have all the tables clean requires repeated rinsing of the rag in water. It requires more -effort-. More time. In these days, "time" translates into "value". Gold that has been thoroughly refined in the fire is more "precious" than the raw ore.

The precious value of something (anything) is directly related to the painstaking time and effort that goes into its end product. A person who has been saved out of a burning building views their own life with greater value than if the fire had not happened. And I suspect they have a much fonder appreciation for the person who saved them, than if they had merely passed each other as they were walking along.

Why should our Faith be so precious to us? How was our Eternal Life obtained? Not only did Jesus save us out of the fire, but He also gave His life while doing it. As Jesus said,

"Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one�s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you." (Jn15:13-14)

Jesus paid the ultimate price for us. Do we not consider ourselves "indebted" to Him?

Many people who get rescued often seek out the 'hero' that saved them. Often a special bond develops.

Jesus has saved us; but we have not yet 'met' Him. We know we are 'indebted' to Him, and we yearn to see Him, to complete that bond. But there is that unspeakable sense of "love" for him. HE SAVED MY LIFE!!!

"Though now you do not see Him yet, believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory" (vs8)

If you are using kjv/nkjv, please note the difference in punctuation, which makes all the difference in the world as to its meaning. (Jesus spoke of every jot and tittle) The LITV, MKJV, NASB (even NIV) render it more correctly, like is quoted here. Our faith is not a -blind- faith, as if to say: We don't see Him, but we believe -anyway-. But rather: No, we don't see him -yet-. We are in anticipation of seeing Him, but it hasn't happened yet. But our anticipation of seeing Him is based on faith. Our faith is not in an unseeable God. In Jesus, "He who has seen [Jesus] has seen the Father" (Jn14:9 see also: Heb1:3, Col1:15)

This joy and expectation is all FAITH-BASED. How strong and true is one's faith? How does one know, unless it is tested? Nails, bolts, screws and many other things are tested. What is the tensile strength of an item? They take representative samples and purposely stress them to their limits. At what force does the metal begin to bend, stretch or break? At what torque do the threads strip? And these limits...are they within design specs?

God knows what our limits are.

"No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also provide a way out, that you may be able to bear it." (1Co10:13)

But what if, when the going gets tough, way before God's imposed limit, the person gives up? When trials of the "stony ground" come along, "..when affliction or persecution arises on account of the Word, -IMMEDIATELY- they stumble." (Mk4:17) They are "examined...as to whether [they are] in the faith", and they fail the test. (2Co13:5-6)

But when they "endure to the end" and they realize how God keeps them "safe" (Mt24:13), is there not a profound joy in one's faith.

It suddenly dawns on me, one possible reason God gave women labor pains? Yes, we know it is because of sin. (Gen3) But in our sinful state, how does a woman have that profound bond with her child, except that she goes through excruciating circumstances giving birth?

"A woman, when she is in labor, has sorrow because her hour has come; but as soon as she gives birth to the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a person has been born into the world." (Jn16:21)

A bond that is difficult (for normal people, nearly impossible) to break.

And yet God says,

"Can a woman forget her nursing infant, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Indeed, they may forget; yet I will not forget you." (Is49:15)

And when a True Believer experiences trials, either in innocence due to persecution, or because of nurturing and discipline due to disobedience, that love and bond with the Lord is of similar proportions. The Lord brought me out of my apostasy and revealed His love to me... How could I possibly go back to that gutter out of which He rescued me?!! People sometimes have chided me for being so harsh and unloving and judgmental, for being too "sticky"; sticking to God's Word. But I have already been where they want me to revert to, and know what it is; and have been lifted out of that "miry clay". I am now standing on the Rock. (Ps40:2) Why would I wish for that slough again? Does a person just rescued out of a burning building, eagerly rush back into the building because: Oh, it was so nice, non-judgmental and loving in there! ??

"..but others rescue with fear, snatching them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh." (Ju1:23)

I have not yet seen Jesus face-to-face; but based on what He has brought me though, I know that my faith is not ill-placed. And I know I'm not crazy for looking forward to seeing Him. And I have no intention of reverting to the world's swill pond.

When one considers the mother-child bond, how strong that is; and if we understand that God's care for His own is even greater, does it not make perfect sense Peter's comments that the joy is "inexpressible"; and seeing as how it is God, also "full of glory".

So, what about all these people? They behave as though they don't feel that Salvation was all that great an event? No big deal? They weren't really ALL -THAT- BAD, but 'what-the-hey' (their expession of their attitude, as the world expresses such things), now I'm saved. Yippy! My insurance is paid up. Such a disregard for one's state in sin as a sinner perhaps indicates that the person is not really saved, at all?

Jesus said, "But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little" (Lk7:47b)

If they don't seem to love the Lord, by their actions and lives, perhaps they haven't (even) been forgiven, at all? Many of them, also, tend to be the ones who don't believe in an 'imminent' Rapture. Perhaps that is because, rather than being full of "joy inexpressible" in -anticipation- of meeting Jesus; rather, they are full of dread? Perhaps their false doctrine gives away their pretend "faith"? They do not have Eternal Life "reserved in Heaven" for them? Knowing the Holy Spirit is not residing?

And then, we come to the final point....

"...receiving the outcome of your faith; the salvation of your souls" (vs9)

Let's address one aspect of Reformed theology briefly. This verse knocks one of their doctrines and arguments flat. In proclaiming their doctrines of Election, Limited Atonment and Irresistible Grace, and Sola Fide they often use an argument that: a "dead person cannot repent". They claim that some are predestined for Life, and others are predestined to Death, and the sinner has no choice in the matter. A dead person cannot formulate thoughts nor do anything, including reaching and calling out to God for forgiveness and mercy. Some of them claim that God reaches down and effects "regeneration" (first), and -then- the sinner, thus regenerated, responds in faith. Trouble is, those arguments of theirs are limited to 'spirit'.

When God created man, man was formed out of dust, God breathed into him the "breath of life", and what did man become? A "living soul". (Gen2:7) What is soul? "...the soul of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev17:11) And why cannot we get into Heaven? "..flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption" (1Co15:50) Due to being a sinner, the judgment is, "the soul who sins shall die" (Ezk18:4)

God invites, "Come now and let us REASON together..." (Is1:18) What is reason? A function of the mind. How are we to worship and pray to God? With the "mind". (1Co14:14-15) How does the mind work? Our souls (blood) coursing through the brain. Blood and brain...that's "flesh and blood".

We are saved through the birth "from above" (Jn3:3) of the Holy Spirit (Jn3:8) The "new creation" (2Co5:17) of salvation is 'spirit' based. Remember, it is the Holy Spirit who "reserves" our spot in Heaven (vs2,4) having sealed the guarantee (Eph1:13-14) who also dwells in us. (Rom8:9) But when Salvation is fulfilled, we have met Jesus face to face, and we have been given possession of Eternal Life, -what- is it that is saved? Our "soul".

This is what Jesus died to save. A lot of people don't take note of this. But when Jesus was hanging on the cross, what was it that His shed blood was doing? How did His sacrifice atone before the Father?

When Jesus shed His blood He gave "His soul". And what God saw in His suffering was the "travail of His soul" and was "fulfilled" (Is53:10-11)

Yes, Paul speaks of the "spirit" being "saved". (1Co5:5) But at the resurrection, what is resurrected? Bodies. Paul spends a great deal of time on this in 1Co15. And through the blood, the soul is inextricably linked to the body.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they did so with their bodies. Their physical bodies ate physical fruit. And somebody recently in an e-mail made an interesting correlation to me: Adam and Eve sinned in relationship to a certain 'tree'; and when Jesus paid the pentalty, He was hung on a "tree". (Ac5:30, 10:39, Ga3:13) Condemnation came through one tree, and Salvation through another. And so, when Saving Faith has fulfilled its course (in the spirit), when we meet the Lord, the "outcome" (result) of Faith is the "salvation of the soul". Along with it, the new "changed" body of incorruption and immortality. (1Co15:51-54) Not to mention, then, access to the "Tree of Life" (Rev22:14)

So this rejoicing and inexpressible joy can be expressed:

"O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? ..thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor (and trials) is not in vain in the Lord." (1Co15:55,57-58)

Mystery - (1Peter 1:10-12)

"Of this salvation the prophets have sought out and searched diligently... things which angels desire to look into" (vs10,12)

When Adam and Eve sinned, God made a promise of salvation; but the promise was veiled behind symbolism. The "Seed" of the woman. (Gen3:15) An animal was killed, and from Abel's offering, we can see how they were already instructed regarding the "fat" (Gen4:4), as there would later be many mentions when Moses would come along and institute all the temple rituals. (Ex23:18, 29:13, etc) When David cries out, "My Mighty God, My Mighty God, why have You forsaken me?" (Ps22:1) did he fully understand what he was prophesying? When Isaiah prophesied about the "tender plant", "man of pain", "He has borne our sickness", "the chastisement for our peace was upon Him" (Is53) did he fully understand what the Holy Spirit was proclaiming through him? When the coming of Messiah was prophesied, "And you, Bethlehem... out of you shall come One leading Who will shepherd My people Israel." (Mic5:2,6) did Micah understand fully?

If all these prophecies (and others) had been so crystal clear, one would think that Jesus would have been received by the ruling elites and scholars. The scholars were not even privy to the giving of His name, but the angel was sent to Mary and Joseph, His name shall be "Jesus" (Mt1:21, Lk1:31) Except for the visit of the wise men, asking after the new "King of the Jews", and Herod's attempt to obliterate Him, those In-the-Know DID NOT KNOW Him.

According to prophecy, and their own self-absorbed political ambitions (Jn11:48), they envisioned a completely different -kind- of Messiah. They were looking for political salvation from Rome. For some reason they didn't see Jesus coming to save the world from sin. After all, they were already (self) righteous, maintaining the "traditions of [their] fathers" (Ga1:14)

Also, the Jews apparently had forgotten the nature of God's call to them, as a "kingdom of priests" (Ex19:6) A priest, by definition, is a go-between between God and man. If they were a "kingdom" of priests, that means God's original desire for them, as a nation, was to be God's representative to the other nations of the world. By definition: being evangelists of God to the Gentiles. They rebelled; and by the time Jesus came they considered Gentiles to be "dogs" (Mt15:26-28) And so God sent Jesus to do what Israel failed to do: to be a "a Light to bring revelation to the Gentiles" (Lk2:32, Is42:6)

There were 4000 years of foreshadows of Jesus, even though they didn't understand it. They repeated the animal sacrifices, sabbath after sabbath, year after year. They knew -of- the woman's "Seed"; but did not understand what would actually be happening. Just as we look ahead at prophecy and see the -pieces- of the end-time 'puzzle', but the puzzle hasn't yet been fully assembled, so they did, too. So they continued offering the sacrifices in faith. But -we- have now become the recipients of their prophecies. They continually looked -ahead-. But we, now, look -back- "in remembrance" (Lk22:19, 1Co11:24-25) It is now past-perfect tense. "It has been finished" (Jn19:30) And actually, seeing as how prophecy spoke of it, in God's convention, Jesus had already been offered "before the foundation of the world" (vs20 see also: Jn17:24)

To have questions amongst -people- I understand. The part that puzzles me is the closing phrase, "things which angels desire to look into" (vs12b) Angels have a perspective of creation and man's history that man, himself, does not yet see. They have direct access to God's throne. From Job's account, we know that there are discussions between God and satan regarding people. When Ahab needed to die in battle, an angel suggests a method to get the job done, by being a "lying spirit" in the mouths of the false prophets. (2Ch18:21) Jesus tells Peter that Satan had asked God's permission to "sift [him] as wheat" (Lk22:31)

So, if angels have all this intimate knowledge and understanding of man, why do they not 'understand' (?) Salvation? Or perhaps, it means something a bit different? Perhaps angels don't have opportunity for salvation when they disobeyed...but wish they did? This is a mystery I don't understand. And I don't know that the passage answers it. And the first couple chapters of Hebrews don't really answer it either. John is chided for bowing to the angel (Rev19:10,22:9); and the angel tells John, "I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this Book" And yet, on the other hand, Paul informs us that we will "judge angels" (1Co6:3) Is that -all- angels? ...or just the fallen ones?

Mysteries.

The whole thing of Jesus Christ and Salvation is a mystery; which Paul reveals in many of his epistles.

But notice the -topic- of the mystery. It is concerning "the grace towards you". (vs10b) In the OT, during worship, their worship songs were of the words:

"Oh, give thanks unto Jehovah, for He is good; for His mercy is eternal." (1Ch16:34)

But they were bound in Law. They were continually -doing- rituals towards righteousness. They continually -kept- the Law, perhaps not being fully aware that, behind those rituals was actually God's grace.

"Through Jehovah�s kindness (mercy & grace) we are not consumed, because His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness." (Lam3:22-23)

David is a prime example of OT grace. For what he did, committing adultery and murder, he should have been executed. But when he confessed, was told: "Jehovah has put away your sin; you shall not die" (2Sa12:13) In a historical context of Law... Grace!

This is the prime difference between Christianity and pagan religions. Remember, we opened the series observing that Jesus was Resurrected. Pagan religions worship -dead- deities. And as for the qualifications to participate in Eternal Life... well... pagan religions cannot offer it. But they seek after -something- through works. Babylon of Rome has penances, masses, rosaries. Other religions do various forms of attempted self-atonement: climbing steps on bloody knees, self-flagellations, doing "random acts of kindness" (Oprah's religion), going to church regularly, etc.

But Salvation in Christ is based on God's -grace-. We failed, we messed up, and we cannot save ourselves; any deeds we might wish to use for self-atonement would never measure up to God's holy standard. It is hopeless. But when we acknowledge our own hopelessness, and receive the gift God offers...we receive SO MUCH MORE than any of the world's religions pretend to offer. They cannot offer Eternal Life. God does, through Jesus Christ.

And since it was fallen angels who devised the religions that man took up, starting at Babel (and before the flood), perhaps that is why they "desire to look into" it? God's grace, provided courtesy of Jesus' shed blood (giving His soul), is so far beyond anything they could devise.

Perhaps: Discussions that have been going on in the Heavenlies? Perhaps, in time, we will become privy to them...as we then "fully know just as [we are] fully known"? (1Co13:12)

Become Holy - (1Peter 1:13-25)

"Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also become holy in all conduct, because it is written, Be holy, because I am holy." (vs13-16)

Periodically, over time, we have observed some verse, cluster of verses or brief passage that summarizes, in a nutshell, the sum-total of what is necessary for Godly living and Eternal Life. We have suggested on those occasions that, were it to be the case that no other Scripture was available to us, that those verses would be 'enough', by themselves, to tell us all we needed to know, to be pleasing to God.

For this series in 1&2 Peter, given the previous five lessons, this cluster of verses here, wraps up in a nutshell the Christian life. It is a bridge between the opening lessons, and that which follows: the details. Peter opens with a clear and concise understanding of Salvation as provided by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the anticipation of its receipt when Jesus is revealed.

But... SO WHAT? Salvation has been purchased, and the offer to each sinner is 'on-the-table'. But, then what? Is it enough to Believe and Rejoice... and then forget that anything has changed? Do we go along in life as we always have? Or... if things have changed, on what basis do they change? And how do we have the strength and ability to -be- 'different'?

"Therefore" What is "therefore" there for? (yes, a play on words) Whenever a person sees the word "therefore", it indicates a division. Perhaps, a paragraph mark. It is an indication of "this", therefore "that". One topic is addressed, and as a result of the understanding of that topic, it leads to another topic. The one -causes- something else. Or because of one, another is necessary.

During the era in which I was coming into adulthood in the late 60s, early 70s, those who called themselves "christian" loved to get "high" on Jesus. They loved the meetings where songs were danced to, and the expressing of spirituality was the continual repetition of "Praise the Lord", "Thank you Jesus", etc. During those times I would attend Bible "studies". If this chapter in 1Peter was under discussion, they would love to romanticize and get all ooey gooey, warm-n-fuzzy, about the "rejoicing" in Salvation. But if somebody like me would join in the "share" times and try to point people's attention to vs13 and following, what are our 'responsibilities' as Christians: Oh, you're so judgmental!

Well, folks... With this lesson this series becomes "judgmental". From here on out, understanding the 70s mentality in this point, the rest of the series is going to be, pretty much, "judgmental". It is Faith in Action. Faith, proved out through works. (Ja2:14-26, Eph2:10)

Salvation might be free (a gift), but the path to Redemption at the revelation of Jesus Christ is NOT a 'free ride'. And that's what the rest of the book is about. As Paul says, to "cultivate your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php2:12b)

"Therefore gird up the loins of your mind" (vs13a)

This is the opening key in the "how to" of Christian living. What does it mean to "gird up the loins"? Think of a society where men wore robes. The writer speaks of running the "race that is set before us" (Heb12:1) In those times, if a man was to run a race, he needed to "hike up" the skirts of his robe, so his legs would not get tangled in the folds of the cloth. Women, if running with a dress on, might hike up their skirts. In ancient cultures, they would gather up the skirts and tuck them (gird) into the waist band (loins), leaving their arms and hands free to work. In our modern cultures we might speak of "rolling up the sleaves" in order to get to work.

So, in other words: Let's GET TO WORK.

How? What is it that guides and directs our activity? The MIND. Even in something spiritual like worship, Paul exhorts the use of the "mind". (1Co14:14-15) We are exhorted to be of "sound mind" (Rom12:3, 2Tim1:7, Tit2:12) as Peter also does later in this epistle (4:7) Again: Peter and Paul agree.

Thus, if it is the MIND that guides us, we need to keep a "clear head". Peter says to "be sober". Paul says, "do not be drunk with wine, in which is debauchery" (Eph5:18) Proverbs speaks much against drunkenness. Satan comes along with "arguments" (2Co10:5) and "profane and empty babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge" (1Tim6:20) If we are to "avoid" such nonsense, how can we sort through it all if our heads are fuzzy and cluttered up with booze and drugs? We cannot.

With the clear mind, what is the first order of business? "..rest your hope fully upon the grace" which was described in the opening verses. It is one thing to rejoice in it, even with dancing and smiles. But when the trials come, of which Peter speaks often in the epistle, what is it that gets us through to the other side? The dancing and smiles, or to "rest..fully" on the promised hope? When an athlete prepares for the "race that is set before us", those who win are those who prepare in all seriousness. They have trained. And so they rely on that inner strength, and when the going gets tough, they "dig deep" for the perseverence. When the Christian digs deep, what do we find? The Holy Spirit. Remember? The Holy Spirit is our guarantee, who dwells in us. The Christian life might be of the Spirit, but our own personal access is through the (clear) Mind. We do not "empty our minds" and become "spirit-filled" (with demons) (Mt12:44-45) We REST FULLY through the Holy Spirit, upon the grace that is ours when Christ appears. Like Paul speaks of:

"forgetting those things which are behind and stretching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are complete, be of this -MIND-" (Php3:13-15)

The Christian life is "goal" oriented. Yes, it is "purpose driven" (to borrow some terms from today's apostasy, but use them Scripturally) It is our purpose to "stretch" (in the race) towards the goal. When Jesus is revealed, we receive the "upward call"... "Come up here!" (Rev4:1)

Peter is going to speak of things that we -do-. But before we can start doing new things, we must first discard the old.

"as obedient children" (vs14a) Those who used to whine and complain about being "judgmental" did not like these kinds of passages, because part of that whole culture was one of rebelling against parents. Of NOT -obeying-. They would riot, stage sit-ins, and other protests...against authority. Against -the- 'establishment'. Nobody can tell me what to do! I'll show you: I'll do anything I want. Thus, their disobedience of authority also extended to God. Some of those from those days, in more recent years are the ones who swooningly, in hushed pious tones utter, "Graaaeeesss". We don't have to follow any rules to be a Christian ... Graaaeeesss. Graaaeeesss. Graaaeeesss.

But there -are- rules. A ruler is something by which measurements are taken. Does something measure up? How do we make something measure up? We must follow the rules. In sports, the athlete must "compete lawfully" (2Tim2:5) otherwise they become "disqualified".

"But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." (1Co9:27)

Where do we begin this process?

"..not conforming yourselves to the former lusts in your ignorance" (vs14b)

Sorry to be stuck back in the 70s. That's my history. Many of you came through the same period, so you remember what I'm talking about. But the principles are still true today. They would chant the mantra, "Do your own thing, man!" However, if a Christian decided to take a path 'different' from theirs, the Christian's "own thing" (to follow God) was not acceptable. It was OK to do your "own thing" as long as that "thing" was the -same- as -their- "own thing". The generation was doing their "own thing"...but everybody was expected to -conform- to the -same- "thing". Back then it was acid rock, drugs and free sex. Today it is punk rock and gangsta rap, drugs and free sex. I guess things haven't changed much have they. Except that, where the youth then, when engaged in these activities were in rebellion against parents, those youth are today's parents and grandparents, and in fact -encourage- their children to behave in the same debauchery...giving out free condoms in school, and passing laws allowing young girls to get abortions without their parents' knowledge...essentially -encouraging- immoral promiscuity.

But the Christian is to NOT be like that! Those are the "former" lusts. The former life. But as Christians, "all things have become new" (2Co5:17) Perhaps back then we didn't know any better. We were in ignorance. But that was the WHOLE POINT of God's grace...

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked (Grace), but now commands all men everywhere to repent," (Ac17:30)

If we have -repented- of (and by definition -repudiated-) the past in sin, why would we stay in it? If we stay in it, our "repentance" was false. It was not a "circumcision...of the heart". (Rom2:29)(to Jews)

Thus the cuttingly descriptive terminology. Circumcision CUTS AWAY, and it is thrown away. The very definition of "holy".

"..but as He who called you is holy, you also become holy in all conduct" (vs15)

Notice some things that "holy" is NOT. Holiness is NOT a feeling, emotions, or mesmerization over something spectacularly awesome, over which one swoons and sighs. Holiness is -action- and -position- (location). Peter equates holiness with "conduct". See what I said? "judgmental" Where the sinner does certain things, the Christian does NOT DO those things, but does OTHER things. Where the sinner goes to hell-hole dens of iniquity, the Believer does NOT GO to those places to participate in iniquity. The Believer "purposes" to "not defile himself" (Dan1:8, Lev18:24, etc) with the "works of darkness" of the world. (Eph5:11) Why? Because those things are contrary to God's goodness and righteousness. God is separated from those things... Thus, why would God's child even want to be associated with them! We are to be -like- our Father in Heaven.

Yes. Judgmental. A day of judgment is coming... even for the Believer. The "judgment seat of Christ" (Rom14:10, 2Co5:10) And, God is an impartial judge. He might have extended His grace to save us; but if we continue willfully in sin, His judgment is "without partiality" (vs17) Thus, while we may look forward to our redemption, the outcome of our faith, with rejoicing; we need to also keep in mind a fearful expectation of the accounting of our lives before Him.

"So then each of us shall give account concerning himself to God" (Rom14:12)

Why should our lives matter? Many who call themselves "christian" think it doesn't matter. After all: God accepts us "just as we are" ... Graaaeeesss!!

NO HE DOES NOT!

And furthermore....what sort of slap in the face is that towards Jesus? Jesus 'redeemed' us with His blood. The sacrifice required a "lamb without blemish and without spot" (vs19) If His sacrifice required perfection, why would we purposely trample His work into the mud?!

The reason we live holy lives is -because- Jesus died to redeem us. What we addressed in the opening five lessons, he repeats in vs18-23. Please read it, even though we won't cover it again now. These studies are intended to be read with your Bible (open) next to your computer, so you can follow the comments and the passage, side-by-side. Hopefully you will do that.

If we were sinners, Jesus died to -deliver- us -from- sin; not to stay in it. Our NOT STAYING IN IT is the definition of HOLY. God is Holy. We are to, now that we are saved, -become- holy. We -were- not holy when we were sinners. But now that we are saved, we -become- holy. Why? Because Jesus died and rose again, to provide us Eternal Life.

The Holy Spirit "sealed" us into holiness spiritually. (Eph1:13) That was done to/for us, "not of ourselves..not of works". That was the "gift". And now, because of the subsequent "renewing of our minds" (Rom12:2), our "behavior" (vs17) also becomes holy as we gird up the loins of our mind, knowing God's Word that is in our 'mouth and in our heart that we may DO it' (De30:14)

Now... just in case the attraction of the world is strong, remember: In our fleshly state we are like grass. There is no eternal value to that which would seek to allure.

"All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away" (vs24)

This life of flesh and blood is fleeting. We may live an entire generational lifetime on earth. We may think it is a "long time" as we grow old. But in reality, it is fleeting. Plants grow, they die, and rot. So, too, with flesh and blood. And then where are all those worldly "good times" that we were lusting after?

"For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away." (Ja4:14b)

But Jesus died to pay our sin's penalty. And then rose again to assure us newness of life, Eternal Life. Remember: We don't see that Eternal Life -yet-, but we anticipate it. Thus, we must never lose sight of that which we don't yet see. Contradiction in terms?

"...while we do not contemplate the things which are seen, but the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2Co4:18)

"..the Word of the Lord endures forever." (vs25a)

That's the whole point. And...

"..this is the Word which by the gospel was preached to you" (vs25b)

Milk of the Word - (1Peter 2:1-8)

"...as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." (vs2-3)

So, if we are to live holy lives, what is the foundation for the new life? What is the energy? Yes, we may "dig deep" and find the Holy Spirit residing, but is "the Spirit" -enough-? If a runner in the race hasn't loaded up with "carbs" ahead of the race, digging deep isn't going to matter much. If there hasn't been an intake of food, the runner might dig deep, but the body is simply going to "poop out". A car running out of fuel, it doesn't matter how big the engine is, it is going to 'die' in the middle of the race track.

What is the Christian's food?

"Your Words were found, and I ate them; and Your Word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart;" (Jer15:16) "I have treasured the Words of His mouth more than my prescribed food." (Job23:12b)

But when a person is first born what form do they comprise? People are born as babies. And what do babies eat? Well, they don't. They drink milk. They are not yet capable of eating solid food. Their digestive systems have not yet developed sufficiently.

So... baby gets hungry and starts squalling, whimpering or crying. As its mouth is brought to the source of the milk, it begins to suckle, and those sounds of complaint turn into contented sounds of cooing and satisfied grunts. In order not to potentially offend anybody with this next bit, lets talk about animals. A kitten is next to its particularly furry mother, the little paws do some kneeding, which also parts the excessive fur away, and it is able to find what it's looking for.

In order to access the milk, the encumbrances must be peeled away. Just as fur or clothing is "laid aside" for babies; in the Christian life the barriers of malice, deceit, hypocrisy and everything 'evil' must be removed. (vs1) Sin resulted in humanity wearing clothes. Even though it is a societal necessity, clothing in a very real sense, is a reminder and symbol of sin. In order for baby to get food, that symbol of sin must be taken away.

It is the same thing with God's Word. If a person is harboring sin, intimate fellowship with God, through the Word, is not possible. How does the darkness of an evil heart possibly receive the Light of God's Word? The two don't mix. It's impossible to nurse on milk when obstructions are in the way.

Also, notice Peter speaks of the "pure Word" (vs2)

I really get disgusted with the 'authorities' who pontificate from the ivory towers of government what is "good for us" in terms of medicine and health practices. Milk is not good for us; then suddenly a "new study" shows that milk -is- good for us. People shouldn't drink wine; a "study" -now- shows that red wine is good for the heart. Take all these X, Y, Z drugs for A, B, C ailments; oh wait! Take them all off the shelves! Some people have been dying from side effects. As this is being written... People should watch their weight because obesity has so many countless harmful effects. Wait! Somebody has just come out with a study suggesting that a little extra weight can actually have some beneficial effects. So, which is it???

When I was a youngster I seem to recall that no American mom (as I was growing up in Japan) ever breast-fed their babies. The 'gods' of medicine proclaimed that mamma's milk was "bad" for baby. (Although, it was impossible in our rural area to miss the fact that Japanese mothers fed their babies the way God designed it) Now, in recent years... Ooooh, the benefits of breast feeding baby. It will reduce the chances of allergies, will increase heart health, strengthen the overall immune system, and all sorts of other wonderful benefits.

Did mamma's milk suddenly -change- from being "bad" to "good"? All those years had God created a flawed feeding system for baby?

But what do we see in christendom? Rather than feeding on the "pure milk of [God's] Word", the young in the Lord are fed "formula" and other concoctions. Instead of the -pure- Word, they are fed the -writings- of this famous person, that "church father", this other notable scholar, the concensus of "church history", "edicts" and "diets" (e.g. "Diet of Worms" Oh, how yummily appropriate!!! Although I don't suppose Martin Luther appreciated the pun!) To them the Bible must agree with "creeds", otherwise it is changed. To be a preacher worth his salt, he must have countless books of commentary on his library shelves. And if questioned, must know how to properly regurgitate the swill of Nimrod's Babylonish traditional barf food.

When a person becomes a 'scholar', they become filled with man's wisdom. But man's wisdom is "foolishness with God" (1Co3:19) But when a person feeds on God's "pure" Word, we find that its "taste" is "good" (vs3)

"The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Ps12:6)

"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him." (Pr30:5)

And what results from feeding? Growth. And with growth? Strength.

While running the race and 'digging deep', yes, we found the Holy Spirit who resides. But 'how' did we have the strength to even 'dig'? God's Word.

"...man does not live by bread alone; but man lives by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of Jehovah" (De8:3, Mt4:4)

You see... this is the #1 flaw of charismania. They lay aside God's Word in favor of "spirit". Like that meeting I read about some years ago, where a congregation had been "worshiping", becoming 'high in the spirit'...whereupon the pastor abdicated his God-given duty to "preach the Word" (2Ti4:2), and announced words something like: We won't have the Word tonight, we've had the spirit. But without the Word, how do they know -which- spirit they are of? We are told to "test the spirits" and to "not believe every spirit". Not all spirits are from God. (1Jn4:1) What is the ruler against which we measure to ascertain where any spirit (of the moment) is from? God's Word. How do we know if that momentary spirit is proclaiming an "other gospel" (which is accursed)(Ga1:8-9), unless we have the -standard- that HAS BEEN PREACHED and HAS BEEN RECEIVED? How do we know what has already been given "once for all"? (Ju1:3) It's been recorded. It has been written down. Thus, when a strange spirit starts spewing forth some strange things, how does God's child recognize immediately whether that utterance is from God's Holy Spirit, or not? By -knowing- God's Word. How does one know God's Word? By feeding.

How does a young man know how to stay away from evil and keep a "cleansed" way? "By taking heed according to Your Word" (Ps119:9)

So... it starts out with milk; and then with maturity, growth and strength, the building progresses to stones. (vs4-5) Something that is solid and is not easily moved.

Indeed, the apostasy likes to be "spirit-filled", which wafts around in the breeze; and they get tossed around, to and fro, by "every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Eph4:14)

But if we are in Christ, Jesus is the "living stone". He is the Foundation. (1Co3:11) Sinful man rejected Him, but He was "chosen by God" (vs4) And as we are Christ's "Church"... well, we often say that the Church of Jesus Christ is not that 'building', with the sign out front, and padded pews inside. But in fact, the Church -is- a Building. A building of "living stones" that is being built up "a spiritual house" (vs5)

And here we have another Jewish picture. A "holy priesthood" and "spiritual sacrifices". In the OT when animals were offered up, they did so, typically, on stones. Thus, if the Believer -is- a "living stone" with which the Church is being built, the Believer is two things: both the building and the altar.

The building was the "house" representing God's presence, where God placed His name, to dwell. (1Ki8:27, De12:5,11, 1Ki5:5) Thus, the Believer experiences the -glory- of God's indwelling presence through the Holy Spirit. (Rom8:9)

But also, the stone was the "altar". (Ex20:25) If we experience God's glory, we also must be a living sacrifice...

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom12:1)

Now... something built of stone can be both a shelter as well as an obstacle. It can be a support or an obstruction. It can be a place of refuge or an object for shame. And these perspectives are based on either Faith or Disobedience.

To the one placing their Faith and Trust in Jesus Christ, the "chief cornerstone" (vs6), the building is precious. God "elected" Israel, and those who were obedient received blessing. They have no cause for shame.

But the same rock that supports the person walking in the light (next lesson vs9), if a person is in darkness they cannot see the stone, and they stumble.

When Israel was in rebellion God sent Jeremiah to be a "wall of bronze" (Jer15:20) Yes: different materials (different passage and events) but the same concept. A wall against which the person in darkness butts up against, and since they are in darkness, they cannot see to get up 'on' it for support, or 'in' it for shelter.

Such a person "stumbles". Why? Being disobedient "to the Word" (vs8)

The apostasy has been throwing away God's Word for ages. If they couldn't explain it away with concensus of the dialectic, they changed the words themselves with perverted translations. They eventually wrote songs, "Walls come down, walls come down" That is... "walls" of "doctrine". That's what the Bible is: Doctrine. Let's not have the Bible, we'll have spirit.

But what is the standard against which obedience or disobedience is gauged? The Bible. The Holy Scriptures (Rom1:2, 2Tim3:15); God's Word. There is a saying, "When all else fails, read the instructions" Thus, if those in darkness refuse to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS, what is the outcome? Failure. Disobedience. And the payment for disobedience is death. That Stone that is the Church's foundation; instead to the unbeliever:

"...on whomever it falls, it will crush him to pieces." (Mt21:44)

People of God - (1Peter 2:9-12)

"But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of His possession, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who did not have mercy but now have mercy." (vs9-10)

While gentile preachers proclaim these words to gentile Believers as though belonging totally to them, and those who believe in "kingdom theology" use this passage to support their dogmas, and while it is certainly true that there are parallels for gentile Believers; the terminology here is uniquely and distinctly -JEWISH-. Some will even preach from the kjv about Christians being a "peculiar people"...that's why the world thinks we are "strange" or "odd"...or they will teach various forms of legalism IN ORDER THAT their followers might be purposely (but unnecessarily) weird.

Now, while the dictionary does define "peculiar" as "unusual, eccentric, odd", the further definitions as might have been the case in older usage English give us, "distinct from all others, belonging distinctively or primarily to one person". It's a word that also applies to a case where, say, a particular species of animal is found only in one limited area of the globe, it would be said that the species is "peculiar to that area"

So, let us understand the "Jewishness" of this passage.

An "elect race". Race is a word related to genetics. Seed. God called out Abraham from Ur, and as the family grew, distinct from the surrounding peoples, they became known as "Hebrews". (Gen14:13, 39:14,17, 40:15, Ex1:16, etc) God's promises to Abraham were to him and his "seed". (Gen12:7, 13:15-16, 15:5, etc) There are some who object to the term "race" to differentiate the various peoples of the world, because all of humanity is one race: if blood types are matched up properly, the blood from one person can be transfused into another from -anywhere- on earth; it matters not whether white, black, yellow, red, or purple with pink polkadots; tall, short, fat or skinny. Thus Paul spoke of "one blood" (Ac17:26) from which all the nations spring.

But the term "race" has also become, through common use, to be understood to indicate the global divisions as families spread out and became national and regional groups. Those nation groups from common ancestry way back there after Noah's flood also became known as "races". When there are squabbles between whites and blacks, it is called racism. When there were squabbles between Japanese, Koreans or Chinese, even though they are all "oriental" and of generically similar features and skin tones (although they, amongst themselves, can tell the differences between each other), it was also racism.

Thus, keeping in mind that Peter is writing to the Diaspora, the "elect race" he is addressing is the (physical) "seed" of Abraham. Israel. Jews. God elected Abraham and his seed to be a nation in the 'land' (Ge12:7, 15:7, etc) that would follow and be obedient to God.

Thus, the "royal priesthood". When Israel came out of Egypt, He commissioned them, "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Ex19:6a)

What is a priest? Looking up the word in a dictionary or lexicon doesn't do much for us. They basically say a priest: is a priest: is a priest. Defining the word by itself. Thus, we must understand from Biblical examples, based on what the priests did.

The priest was a go-between between sinful man and the righteous holy God. The priest gave God's commands to man. (Heb7:11) And he would atone for man's sin before God. (Heb9:7,25) He would adjudicate between people (De17:9) and as such they were also "rulers" of the people. (Ac23:5) They were God's servants. (Ex28:1)

God placed Israel at the crossroads of the then-known-world. (The Americas hadn't yet been "discovered" by those who had not migrated over after the Flood) Trade and traffic between Europe, Asia and Africa passed through the region where God placed Israel. As a national priesthood, Israel was supposed to proclaim "light to the Gentiles" But they failed, nationally. Instead of spreading knowledge of God to the world, they took on all the world's idols. But Jesus came through Israel, and is proclaimed to the world (Lk2:32, Ac13:47, 26:23); and fulfilled God's promise to Abraham, "and in you and in your Seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen12:3, 28:14) And any Believers in Christ, from Israel, are obeying the command. When the "world" was turned "upside down", those were Jewish apostles and missionaries who did so. (Ac17:6)

Believing Jews represent God's original intent for the nation of Israel as a "holy nation". Holy, meaning to be distinct. God's -sole- possession. Yes, if a person is understanding the older English: "peculiarly" God's, as distinct from the world. In that case the kjv word "peculiar" would be another way of saying "holy". Set apart...unto God.

When Israel was in Egypt, they were as nothing...they were slaves. God delivered them out of Egypt at Passover, but "most" of them rebelled and were displeasing to God (1Co10:5) and were judged "because of unbelief" (Heb3:19)

Now, in Christ, those who believe are once again "the people of God" (vs10) What? Through the Law? No. They "now have mercy". Grace.

Is Faith in Christ a dreaded thing? Something to be ashamed of? Something to hide in the closet, lest somebody know?

"...that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (vs9b)

God is -LIGHT- and "in Him is no darkness at all" (1Jn1:5)

So, let's see here: Salvation is a wonderful thing, to proclaim God's praises. His light is marvelous. It is all -GOOD-!

So why is it, then, that so many of those calling themselves "Christian" adapt the world's ways, allegedly for the purpose of "winning" them? Is it that, in their place as God's holy unique possession they are unwilling to be peculiarly distinct? The world notices that they are different, and pokes fun? After all, according to the schoolground mentality, the odd one out is to be laughed at and ridiculed. They might repeat the mantra "Do your own thing"...but only if it is not pure, righteous and holy.

Peter begs...

"I beg you as foreigners and sojourners, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against your soul" (vs11)

The Believer has God's holiness, God's seal, God's light. Why? oh Why? would we wish to be contaminated with the world's filth? Is it -that- much fun to stumble around in the darkness, instead of enjoying the Light?

It would be like having a stop sign, or pole mounted traffic light. These objects are for the purpose of standing out in plain view to give direction to drivers. That is their function. Most everything else around them is different... plants, buildings, fences, etc. To have the fleshly lusts would be like allowing bushes and trees to overgrow, surrounding the signs, obstructing them from view. Drivers coming along, not seeing anything there, continue on, and two come at the same time, collide, and the people die. Peter is saying to cut away the overgrowth. Get those signs back out in plain view, so they can serve the purpose for which they are there.

In the case of the Believer, it is to display God's Righteousness to the world. A person cannot do that if they are grubbing around in the world's lusts. Just as a person cannot feed on God's Pure Word with sin in the way (vs1), we also cannot proclaim His praises if we are covered in the mud of the world.

How does this translate into specific behavior? After all, Peter earlier said to "behave yourselves" (1:17) Our holiness and the praises of God are seen by the world through our behavior. They cannot see our hearts or thoughts; but they can see what we do and say.

"...having your behavior honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation" (vs12)

What is honorable behavior? Do not most people know? What are good works? Do not all people have a "conscience" (Rom2:15) Yes, some consciences are "seared" through repeated disobedience and rebellion. (1Ti4:2) But if you have a room full of guys engaged in course talk and conversations, and some high official comes along, or a supervisor commands to "Clean it up guys", do they not immediately know proper behavior? People know they should not steal; otherwise, when they have stolen, and are asked if they stole, why do they lie, saying they have not stolen, if stealing is OK? Thus, at the least, we should behave in universally known 'goodness'.

However, we also know that righteous people are falsely accused, mainly because they are God's 'possession', and the world hates God and anything belonging to God; and the righteous person's goodness brings to light their own evil. And this has certainly also been true of Jews, particularly the Diaspora. Somebody spreads false rumors that Jews drink the blood of children, or this or that; and pretty soon the rumor becomes "fact" as far as the population is concerned, and persecution ensues.

Believers should live lives that are at least as "good" as the world's standards. Then, when an accusation is made, and investigation conducted, nothing will be found; like in the story of Daniel before he was thrown to the lions. (Dan6:3-5) There was nothing they could find by which to accuse him, except as they then contrived a law which they knew Daniel would disobey, because it involved his relationship with God.

When Daniel's three friends, and himself were tried, by fire (Dan3) and lions (Dan6), what was the outcome when they were exonerated? In both cases the king/s gave due credit to God. (Dan3:28-29, 6:26-27) God was glorified.

There might be persecution, but if the accusations are false, and there is eventually any shred of justice, the Believer who has "behaved" himself will see God glorified.

These are the guiding principles and foundation. In the next lesson, and following, we will see some specific cases with specific guidelines in several key areas of behavior. Some which the world recognizes, and some which the world might not be attuned to; but which the Believer, adhering to the Higher calling, should observe in obedience to God.

Related topic: "Children of Light"

Ordinances of Man - (1Peter 2:13-17)

"Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man because of the Lord; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good." (vs13-14)

Did not Israel have their own laws? Was not Israel distinct and different from the other nations? Did not their laws come directly from God, Himself? Hammurabi had given laws several centuries before Moses and the Exodus. They were not "good enough"? Israel was God's distinct people, with His distinct laws. Some laws were moral in nature. But others Hammurabi could not possibly have devised, because they dealt specifically, prophetically with the 'future' coming of Jesus to save sinful mankind.

So...what is this that Peter is saying? If God's Law is special and holy, why the exhortation to obey man's laws? Well, here we have another case where Peter and Paul agree; and they, in turn, agree with Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar�s, and to God the things that are God�s." (Mk12:17)

Paul preached to the gentiles...

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell everywhere on the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings," (Ac17:26)

And also...

"Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are ordained by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will receive judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God�s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God�s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Rom13:1-4)

Notice Peter says to obey the "ordinances". What are ordinances? When our local city government passes laws, they are call "ordinances". The rest of the state may differ, but in Spokane (where I live), people on bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, pocket scooters, etc must wear helmets. Fireworks are illegal within city limits. If a business posts a "No Loitering" sign, the sign might include a "City Ordinance" number. If a "No Trespassing" sign is posted, there might be an included Sheriff's dept "ordinance" number. Things such as that. At state and national levels there are other ordinances such as speed limits, smoking bans, and many other such things. In our nation they require that we pay income tax, even though the constitutional ammendment was never officially, legally ratified...thus, that whole practice is totally unconstitutional and illegal. And yet the "governors" require it, and punish those who don't comply.

Peter exhorts to "submit" to the ordinances that are enforced. Paul continues by exhorting to "pay taxes" to whom taxes are due. (Rom13:6-7) A Believer might think to rebel: I don't want to give my money to government, but to God. Well...do you drive on the public roads? What pays to build those roads? Tax money. If you have an emergency, do you hope that somebody from "911" will come and help you? Who pays for those services? The governmentally collected tax monies. You enjoy living in a secure nation, free from warfare? What pays for the military? Taxes.

There was a particular tax that apparently Jesus and Peter shouldn't have needed to pay. But what did Jesus tell Peter? To go catch a fish, take the money out of its mouth and pay. For what reason? "..that we not offend them.." (Mt17:27) As Paul says, "giving no offense in any thing, that the ministry not be blamed" (2Co6:3 kjv) "offense" or "cause of stumbling"

We might be tempted to reason: I follow a "Higher Calling", so why should I obey the world's rules? True... in Christ we may have certain freedoms, but we are not to "use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh" (Ga5:13) Our behavior, even though we may have personal liberties, should not be a cause of stumbling for others. (Ro14:20, 1Co8:13) We are here to proclaim the glorious Light of God. People won't see that Light if they are stumbling because of our deeds.

We should never forget that, as Believers, we are citizens of Heaven. (Php3:20) We are on this earth as "foreigners and sojourners" (vs11) When somebody travels to a foreign country, they do not go with the idea of ignoring and trampling that country's laws. If they do, they get imprisoned. And as some American's have found, who have done this, many other countries do not afford prisoner 'rights' like America does. Sometimes they have been known to languish indefinitely without due process; in accordance with 'that' country's typical practice.

If a Believer gets it into their head that they are somehow "above the law" -because- they are a Christian; they should never confuse the terms "prosecution" and "persecution". If they break the law, they are not suffering "persecution". There's some outfits where the government goes after them, who have it in their minds that God wants them to "take over the government" and make it "Christian"; and when government agents come around, confiscating property or this or that, they wring their hands in dismay at the way the government is "persecuting" them. Where, if they "behaved themselves" and stayed within the ordinances, the government would leave them alone. After all... one of the purposes of government is to guard against, and 'prosecute' perceived "threats" to its authority.

Jesus said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (Jn18:36) And what was Pilate's verdict upon Jesus? "I find no fault in Him at all" (vs38)

So now... from a Jewish perspective, the Diaspora finds itself in a country that says it is illegal to circumcise. (I don't know if there is such a country; but we are contriving an example to understand a Scriptural principle. Bans on other rituals have been placed on Jews throughout history.) Circumcision is Judaism's #1 ritual, begun with Abraham. To many, circumcision -is- what it means to -be- "Jewish". But the 'ordinance of man' says "No". What to do?

For the Christian Jew the -physical- ritual no longer needs to take precedence. It is not the physical, but the heart. When Israel was in rebellion God chides them, "I hate, I despise your feast days; and I will not savor your solemn assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not be pleased; nor will I regard the peace offerings of your fat animals." (Am5:21-22)

"What good to Me are your many sacrifices, says Jehovah? I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of well-fed cattle; nor do I delight in the blood of bulls, of lambs, or he goats. When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain sacrifices; its incense is an abomination to Me. I cannot endure the new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies, and the wicked festivals. My soul hates your new moons and your appointed feasts. They are a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them." (Is1:11-14)

Today's Judaism seems often to be of the mind that God is not pleased with them because they are not taking a proper stand (against the Arabs) and going ahead to observe physical rituals. But God was never nearly so concerned with Israel's ritual, as He was their heart...

"Wash yourselves, purify yourselves. Put away the evil of your doings from My eyes; stop doing evil. Learn to do good, seek justice..." (Is1:16-17)

"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteousness of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the naturally uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Law, judge you who, though having the writings and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Rom2:24-29)

In Jesus Christ the Jewish Christian is...

"...circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ," (Col2:11)

If anybody should have been concerned about ritual, it would have been the pharisee, Paul. But he says...

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths," (Col2:16)

When in a pagan setting, there might be occasions, in certain cultures, where the Believer has no choices. When Naaman was healed, and also became a believer in Jehovah, he knew he was returning to his pagan master/king...

"Yet in this thing may Jehovah pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to bow down there, and he supports himself on my hand, and I bow down in the house of Rimmon; when I bow down in the house of Rimmon, may Jehovah please pardon your servant in this thing. And [Elisha] said to him, Go in peace." (2Ki5:18-19a)

Just as another example, since we have on other occasions addressed the matter of marriage and "weddings": I have firmly concluded that a "church wedding", going up the steps of the altar, and having a priest or pastor "pronounce words" over the couple, is rooted in paganism. It is something a Christian couple should NOT do. Without revisiting the specific references now, in God's eyes, the marriage occurs when there is physical consummation. No piece of paper is necessary to make the marriage "legitimate". Children from that union are NOT "illegitimate"

But not all people are convinced of this. They feel that some ritual is necessary to make the couple "honest". As far as many governments are concerned, today's habits of "living together" is not a crime. In some countries there may be governmental ordinances. There might be cases where the couple, to appease whatever ordinances or offenses of family and friends, will choose to go to their local courthouse and register their union in whatever 'legal' ways that are appropriate, so she can also take on his name... WITHOUT having to submit to Godless pagan fertility religious rituals and idolatry. Local governments typically have ordinances, that are not connected in any way to Babylon of Rome. A case where submitting to the "ordinance of man" would be better than a so-called "church wedding".

"Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." (vs17)

Servants to Masters - (1Peter 2:18-25)

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and fair, but also to the perverse." (vs18)

This was written to a different culture than most of you, likely, who are reading this. Today there still are countries that have slavery; but most have changed, and it is a Boss/Employee sort of relationship. Back when Peter wrote this a fair share of people who worked did so as slaves. They were purchased on the market, and became the property of the master. In the Law through Moses God even addresses the topic how slaves are to be treated, etc. (Ex21:7, Le25:42,44,46, etc,etc)

Thus, the act of aquiring slaves, or of being a slave (in such a culture), was not necessarily a "sin". Back in ancient times it was more of an 'economic' necessity. The slave might be the master's property, but then also, the master provided food, clothing and shelter. The master would even match up males and females to be married to each other.

However, God also made differences for Israel. If you check out the topic (which we won't now) Israel was not to enslave fellow-Israelites. They could buy and sell slaves of other nationalities. However, if an Israelite became in debt, and could not pay, he might go into servitude to pay the debt, but he was not to be treated as a "slave" but as a "hired servant"; with dignity. And then, you who have read in the OT, you will remember the whole thing about the 7-year sabbaths and 50-year Jubilees where those, thus indebted, were sent out free, debt paid, to return to their own lands. (Lev25)

In some nations there are caste systems. More and more these are going the same way as slavery. Is the caste system "sin"? God's grace and Salvation are not related to slave or free, or one's station in life.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Ga3:28, Col3:11)

I've heard that in some church meetings involving military personnel, the speaker (especially if that speaker has a military rank) might say something like, "There is no rank here". In other words, when walking into the building (mentally) leave the stripes outside; because in God's eyes all are of equal rank to each other. But then, when back on duty, observe the proper rank protocols of military duty.

Paul even says...

"Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you are able to be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord�s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ�s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God however he was called." (1Co7:21-24)

Yes, freedom is a good thing, to be desired. But if a Believer is in human bondage with no foreseeable way out, don't worry about it. In whatever "state" a person finds themself, "be content" (Php4:11) Paul is specifically talking about finances there, but when the next verse speaks of being "abased", is that not the condition created by slavery; and slavery might have been caused by financial adversity. Thus, "be content" with the Lord while in slavery.

But what about if the master is a nasty mean ol' buzzard? He is snarly, rude, and dishonest. Peter even says "perverse". That word can include a whole host of offenses. Female slaves were often also the play-things of their masters. Even today, when western females get abducted and sold to Saudi (or other Arab) masters, that is often their fate; as part of the master's harem. What does the Believer do?

There are two scenarios as given in Scriptural examples (perhaps three?), and their outcomes:

When Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were captives in Babylon, part of their training included a different diet than what God had commanded Israel. (Dan1) They Negotiated. They voiced their concerns, and offered to be tested, with the promise that, if they didn't pass the test, they would submit to the diet from the king's table. Their trust in God resulted in their surpassing physical condition, allowing them to eat "kosher".
When Nebuchadnezzar built the statue, the three did not bow. (Dan3) They were thrown into the furnace, and God saved them. When Daniel refused to stop worshiping God, he was thrown to the lions. (Dan6) God delivered him. In both of these cases, due to conscience, God's people refused to submit to idolatry; suffering the consequences. In these cases it was God's will to rescue them; and the incidents resulted in God being glorified. When the apostles replied, "We ought to obey God rather than men", they were imprisoned and beaten. (Ac5:29,40)
When Naaman was healed of leprosy, he was also saved spiritually, vowing to worship Jehovah God. But his station in life saw him as servant to the king. Part of his duties entailed accompanying the king to the pagan temples in worship, so the king could lean on his arm as he bowed...thus, Naaman would have to 'bow' along with the king; and asks Elisha about pardon in this. Elisha replies, "Go in peace" (2Ki5:18-19)

Depending on the master/servant relationship, the slave may have the option to try to humbly negotiate; which in effect, becomes a situation and opportunity to witness for God and righteousness. In some cases, when something is just, plain, wrong; and "because of conscience" (vs19) the slave refuses to comply, such a Believing slave should then also be prepared to receive the consequences...which, in some cases in history, and even today in some cultures, can be quite excruciating: beatings, burnings, dismemberment and all sorts of other tortures. There will also be the case where the slave will obey the master, even knowing that, were they free, they would not do such behavior, knowing it to not be pleasing to God; but in subservience, obeying the master; and in God's eyes, due to the obedience to the master, even though the deed itself was bad, that servant would be pleasing in God's sight -because- they were being submissive to their master, in obedience to God. In such a case, the wrong deed would not be the servant's, but the master's, for demanding it.

This last case might include the female who is the play-thing? Perhaps the servant who is commanded to execute somebody, even though the victim might not actually be guilty, but the king commands it. This would include those in the military, where the primary function is the 'killing' of people. How many innocent civilians get killed in warfare, and yet the government commands it, and soldiers obey. As David says to Joab, "...for the sword devours one as well as another" (2Sa11:25) With that comment David was salving his conscience at having murdered Uriah, but it was a -verity- of warfare. The soldier, while killing, was not committing "murder". (Ex20:13) If murder was committed, it was the government and its leaders.

Sometimes a slave may not have the option to observe strict Black-and-White like a free person might; -because- they are not free. Being a servant, by definition, they become an extension of their master. Peter says to "be subject" to them, even the "perverse" ones.

But the slave also has a conscience. And if they determine in their heart that the matter in question is such a matter to take a stand on, that it is a line not to be crossed, then they should also be prepared to endure the consequences, and trust their souls to the Lord. (Mt10:28)

However... the Christian servant should NEVER be guilty of a personal offense, deserving of punishment. Such punishment is not 'persecution'. It is just deserts. (vs20)

When a Christian slave takes a stand for righteousness, and suffers; 'why' does the Believer submit and endure it? Why does the slave not escape and run away?

"...because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps" (vs21)

Paul even viewed his own sufferings...

"I now rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, on behalf of His body, which is the church," (Col1:24)

Paul, even though a Jew, was also a Roman citizen (Ac22:28), and could have moved anywhere in the Roman empire and lived in safety from the persecutions of the unbelieving Jews. (Ac17:5) But he chose to live in continual danger for the sake of those to whom he was ministering, for the furtherance of the Gospel of Christ.

Jesus, when He suffered, He could have had EVERY RIGHT to speak up, state His case, wield His Godly power, call upon the angels (Mt26:53), and be outta there! He could have told Pilate, Herod and the solders off, sent them directly to hell, and said "Phooey on all of you! Dude, this is bogus! I don't need this!" (vs23) And truly it -was- 'bogus'. But He fulfilled the prophecy that He "opened not His mouth" (Ac8:32, Is53:7) He kept His mouth shut so much so that Pilate "marveled". (Mk15:5) All this, even though He was -perfect-. There was no sin in Him. He was not guilty. He was totally innocent. And yet, for our sakes, He submitted to the "death of the cross" (Php2:7-8) He "gave" His back and cheeks to those who beat Him and plucked His beard. (Is50:6)

Thus... if we stand for righteousness, who would we think to be if we did NOT submit to wrongful persecution? We might be slaves to our earthly masters; but of even greater consequence is that we are slaves to our Master in Heaven.

"A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." (Jn15:20)

If Jesus "gave" Himself, so should the wrongfully accused slave. Or if the accusation is true, but it is for righteousness because of conscience...

"Blessed are they who have been persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." (Mt5:10)

Wives to Husbands - (1Peter 3:1-6)

"Wives, likewise, be subject to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the Word, they, without a word, may be won by the behavior of their wives, when they observe your pure behavior with fear." (vs1-2)

"Wives, likewise...."

The word "likewise" means "in the same way". In 'what' same way? What has been the context? In the previous section we observed the servant (slave) before the master; both the good master, as well as the dirty rotten scoundrel. Thus, the principles we observed there, still apply here. Still keeping in mind that Peter was writing to the Diaspora in an age and culture where slavery was common practice. In the same context wives were also often considered to be little better than a slave. Or even, perhaps, 'lower', since she was a -woman-.

Thus, in the same way the slave was exhorted to be towards the master, so also should the wife be towards her own husband.

Now... before we go any further, let's get one thing on the table and cleared up; what this passage is NOT about. So often, when this topic is addressed from the Scriptures, there will inevitably be the complaints and downright anger; alleging that we are teaching that "it's OK for the husband to abuse his wife". That: teaching Godly wives to submit to their husbands is license for the husband to be a piece-of-work; and that she has to "take it".

For more on this please see the Q/A

Please notice that 'this' study is vss 1-6. It addresses the Godly 'wife'. Nothing is said about the husband, other than the fact that the husband might be an unbeliever. Exhortation to the husband will be in the next lesson, vs7. Many people react like Peter did, when Jesus was having a very pointed, difficult and painful conversation regarding his denial of the Lord, his commission for service, and the manner of his death in martyrdom. He didn't want all the 'heavy' talk to be directed at him, so pipes up with: What about John? (Jn21) Jesus wasn't talking to John; He was talking to Peter. In the same way, this lesson is not addressing the husband. It addresses the Godly wife. The Godly wife's Godly behavior is not predicated on what the husband may or may not do. This is -TO- the Godly wife. Period.

Thus, we notice that the wife is to be "subject" to the husband. No provision for women's lib. Paul gives the chain-of-command:

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (1Co11:3)

Notice that she is subject to her "own" husband. She is not subject to other men...not even the pastor and elders of the church. Notice in the passage where Paul tells women to keep still in church, he directs them to ask anything they want to ask of "their -own- husbands at home". (1Co14:34-35)

What if an unsaved husband wants his wife to wear makeup and fashions that perhaps the pharisees at the "fundamentalist" church might snoot their noses in the air about, and might wish to tell her to present herself differently? What if her hemline doesn't quite meet their preconceived notions of holiness, but it is what her husband wants of her...who does she obey? What hem length is Godly? A couple centuries ago skirts were at the ground, and if somebody showed their ankles, it was considered disgraceful. Then the hemlines came up. When the populace was wearing knee-length, the pharisees were insisting on mid-calf. Mid-calf was "Godly", but knee-length was not. Well...just a few years prior, the view of ankles was a scandal...but now mid-calf is OK? Does the Bible anywhere indicate "how many inches"? And if one was Godly, did God's standards change in the intervening years? This topic is more complex than this...but over the years the pharisees have been known to use the tape measure to determine Godliness. And the woman who wore any makeup was considered ungodly...worldly. To whom is the wife subject? The pharisees, or her own husband? We'll come back to the true spirit of attire in a moment. Right now we're making a point to define the extent of the wife's submission.

Why is the wife to be subject to her husband?

First of all, we already noted that it is God's 'order'. The hierarchy of things. Just as Jesus is subject to the Father (we won't look up references now; if you know your Bible, you know where to find it), so is the wife to be towards her husband. God first made man, and then Eve. (1Tim2:13) That which came first was put in charge. That which came after was the "helper to complement him" (Gen2:18) That which complements is 'less' than that which it complements. And yet together, they make a complete package. Without that which complements, that which it complements is incomplete.

And even though we just used the word "less", that is a position of rank, not level of importance. Lower in rank, not in relationship to God's Kingdom and Salvation. (Ga3:28) In Christ we are all one.

When a believing wife is married to an unbeliever, how will the husband be won to the Lord? By the wife nagging and yapping off with her mouth, persuading herself that she is 'preaching'? Peter says, "without a word". "But!" the soulwinner whines. There are many who believe the only way to witness is by putting the mouth in gear, and tromp on the gas pedal! But what do most men feel about chattery women? That's the "contentious woman" of whom it is proclaimed that "it is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop than to share a house" with her. (Pr21:9, 25:24) Are there not many sitcoms and comedic jokes on the matter? But the thing that will win over the unbelieving husband is the "meek and quiet spirit" (vs4) Actions. The life that is lived. Words are empty, if the life does not mirror those words. Words are only words, but actions and behavior is the true heart behind any words.

And on this topic Paul and Peter agree. Paul exhorts the Christian wife NOT to leave her unequal yoke husband...

"And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, if he is willing to live with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?" (1Co7:13-14,16)

So... what does the woman -do-? Since Peter speaks of it, it must have been similar to how things are today? What does society say a woman should be? Beautiful; perhaps even sexy. How does the world define beauty? It starts with the hair, goes down to the eyes and lips with makeup, and continues on down with how the clothing fits. Fashion seems to be a balancing act of what to show and what to hide. I happened upon a minute of Oprah the other day where she was having some sort of fashion show, and for one of the items she made the comment that it "covered all the right places", even though the material felt to the wearer that they were "wearing nothing". As time progresses, it sometimes seems like women are uncovering more and more; and yet when I see the occasional snippet of older movies or TV footage, they were actually dressing pretty much the same back then...revealing as much as they think they can get away with.

What is Peter saying? That fashion should not be of concern to the Christian? He says...

"Do not let your adornment be outward; arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on apparel" (vs3)

There are many pharisees who use this passage to tell their women not to wear makeup or any accessories. Well, if they take the verse to its ultimate conclusion down that path, then they would need to go naked; because one of the things he says that it should "not" be is "putting on apparel". What is the "not" of "putting on apparel"? Is it not "nakedness"? Thus, is it not obvious he is not dismissing women's beauty practices totally?

But what is he saying? The "adornment". What is adornment? Things that "lend to beauty, ornament, enhancement" If jewelry was a sin or indication of worldliness (as many pharisees say), then God likens the Righteous to sinfulness, speaking of the bride's "ornaments" (Is49:18, 61:10, Jer2:32, etc) If God uses such examples in a positive light, the pharisees must be missing something...

But what is it that adorns the Godly wife?

The "...hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a meek and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God" (vs4)

Since we spoke of hem lines earlier, let me share a particular case from my college days back in the early 70s. Girls then were wearing basically three different kinds of things: pants/slacks/jeans, hippy granny dresses or mini-skirts. What should a Christian girl wear? If she wore a full ankle-length skirt, due to the culture of the day, she would have been associated as being a "hippy". Is that an association a Christian wants to emulate? Many who wore mini-skirts were also, by their behavior, "available" in that era of so-called "free-love".

There was a girl at this particular church I was attending. She wore mini-skirts. I knew more of her because she was also a musician, and we occasionally shared that experience. But she was not a person you would assume was "available". If I may say something that might seem, on the surface, to be a contradiction: She wore her mini-skirts "modestly". There was an "adornment" to her persona that bespoke "pure behavior" (vs2) She was of a "meek and quiet spirit". (vs4) She, with her mini-skirts, was more modest than many who wear floor-length, but who behave like the "strange woman" that Proverbs speaks of so much.

What is in a face? Lipstick and eye-liner? Is that what makes a face "beautiful"? Or is it the "hidden person" coming out through the persona of spirit and soul, which is distinct from any makeup? If the soul is dark with sin, no amount of makeup will make a person beautiful.

When Esther found herself in what the pharisees might have considered a "compromised state", when she went in to be with the king, it says that she used only those beauty products that were required. But because of her Godly heart, her beauty was such that "she rose in favor in the eyes of all who saw her". (Es2:15) And through her submission, even in a pagan setting, she became the queen, who was also instrumental in saving the Jews from extermination.

Peter says...

"For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being subject to their own husbands" (vs5)

Related Topics:
Wives toward their Husbands (Eph5)
Wives to their Husbands (Eph5)

Husbands to Wives - (1Peter 3:7)

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be cut off." (vs7)

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter towards them." (Col3:19)

There's a couple of interesting words used here: "understanding" and "bitter". One by Peter, the other by Paul. Why is a wife something that needs to be understood? Professor Higgins had troubles with this: "Why can't a woman be more like a man!" Peter says she is the "weaker vessel". Why might a husband be bitter towards his wife? These things were written a couple millennia ago; let's address them with 'today' in mind. At NewsWithViews there is a particular writer who seems to specialize on this topic: the writings of Carey Roberts. He documents many various items related to feminism, its militance, how law enforcement and the (in)justice system has been tweaked to always favor the woman, and toss the man out on his ear...no questions asked. In the previous lesson we linked to a Q/A on this subject. And in reality, while feminism seems to be a 'new' thing these days, down throughout history there have always been the individual feminists here and there. Jezebel comes immediately to mind, as well as Herodias who had John beheaded. Not to mention the warnings in Proverbs about the "strange woman". If it is said to be better in the corner of a housetop, than sharing the living space of a contentious woman (Pr21:9, 25:24, 27:15)... but there are not the same kinds of voluminous Scriptures warning the woman against the man... When the woman who wants to "get" the man only needs, when the police arrive after her call, to be huddled in a corner crying and -pretending- to be fearing for her life, even though her husband may not eve