1 Peter 3:18-22 follow-up

   I revised the previous piece, since I feel this passage is so critical.  In this follow-up, which I also revised, I now address "predestination."  Before addressing Calvin and Arminius, I examine a statement I advocate: predestination in Scripture concerns sanctification, not justification.  I figure there are others who are convicted of this fact, but I have only once read someone say this, and it was in a vague manner.  It was the incredible Dr. Howard Henricks, who wrote, “Romans 8 informs me that every believer is predestined to become confirmed to the image of Jesus Christ.  If that’s really true, then how much change should we rightfully expect?” (1)

   Ironically, I became convicted of Romans 8 not teaching predestination for justification after reading a piece by Dr. James Montgomery Boice, who was a strong advocate for “Calvinist” predestination.  Dr. Boice, who is in heaven now, was a minister, scholar, and author.  In 1998, I read his book Two Cities, Two Loves, which was insightful.  Going back to an even early day, I heard a sermon by him on the radio on one occasion around 1994 before I had gained a conviction concerning the doctrine of predestination.  Dr. Boice spent an entire sermon arguing for “double predestination.”  As a young Christian, I listened to his argument, taking his points into consideration.  I would later learn from Scripture this was a disastrous flaw in his theology.  Yet I admire his Christian conviction, and I was blessed by him once in listening to one of his sermons on a Sunday morning as I was getting ready for church.

   In the summer of 2010, I read a book where each chapter is written by a different person, most of whom are renowned “Calvinist” ministers and scholars.  Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching contains a piece by Dr. Boice, who had passed away a few years earlier.  Since he was a prime preacher, I read his chapter intently.  In giving an explanation about Romans 10:14-15, Dr. Boice compared it to Romans 8:29-30, identifying both as “theological chains.”  Yet his claim was that Romans 8:29-30 moves in a forward direction, while claiming Romans 10:14-15 moves backwards.  “Here in Romans 10 we find the same thing.  Only now he does not trace the chain forward, as it were—that is, from where we are now (or from the past) to where we are going to be in the future—but rather backward.  He says, ‘Here are people who believe.  Let’s trace this back and see what the origins of that belief were’” (2).

   Rather than reading on at this point, I decided to prayerfully examine the Scripture passage for myself, a Reformation concept I might add, since something about the order of Romans 8:29-30 did not seem to completely click, though it had sounded fine on the surface.  Read the passage for yourself.  “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30 NIV).

   The first sentence gives us our context.  Paul is not talking about salvation.  He does not in any way mention the sacrifice of Christ.  Paul is talking about being conformed to the likeness of God’s Son.  This does not happen quickly for people.  This is a life long process for a disciple of Christ.  This is the work of the Spirit of Christ, who is discussed in the previous passage, and this is called sanctification.  Then verse 30 goes backwards!  How do I know?  Because of what Dr. Boice stated regarding getting to the origin.  The origin of thought here is glorification, since God was the One who made glorification possible by what He did on the cross.

   The “glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18 NIV) is already present!  It has already been deemed by God to His children, because Christ obtained the glory.  To God be the glory that human beings share in His glory.  Glorification of people is not the end goal.  Making His children Christ-like is the end goal.  Thus predestination concerns sanctification, and not justification, which is why “ TULIP Calvinists” are incorrect regarding their doctrine of “predestination,” yet the reason that the doctrine of “eternal security” is still correct, in contrast to what Arminians teach.

   Speaking of Arminians, I spent a chunk of my Memorial Day (2013) weekend reading writings of both John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.  That reading affirmed the fact that when it comes to soteriology, Calvin was beautifully correct and Arminius was tragically wrong about penal substitution, whereas Arminius was beautifully correct and Calvin was tragically wrong about unlimited atonement.  I learned in some theology classes at CCU that people usually get lumped into either an Arminian camp or a Calvinist camp, yet this passage shows that practice to be a mistake.  Peter states: “Christ died once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (I Peter 3:18 NIV).  In Book two, chapter 17, of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes a classic piece supporting penal substitution.  He properly interpreted the plethora of Scripture which teach that Christ’s death served a specific purpose of being the expiation, which means to take away God’s wrath.  From a historical standpoint, Calvin was agreeing with Anselm, and Anselm had it right.

   However, Arminianism fails to realize the justice that is carried out with the forgiveness.  Jacobus Arminius advocated that Christ’s death and resurrection was more of a general victory over death, and serves as an example of the seriousness of sin which should influence a person to turn to Christ, which will result in that individual being pardoned for sins by God.  In a sense, Arminius was going with Abelard, but Abelard had it wrong.  The forgiveness of Christ is not a “pardon,” rather the forgiveness results from atonement!  Why?  Because God is just, and He determined that sin must be accounted for.  The atonement is the core doctrine of the Christian faith, and yet it is neglected by many and was missed by Arminius.

   On the flip side, John Calvin made one of the terrible theological mistakes in history, arguing for “double predestination,” which is defined as God having determined before creating man who will be saved and who will be condemned, knowing that all people would sin.  His argument gave cause for limited atonement.  Yet this verse and others in Scripture debunk limited atonement.  Calvin was in such horrible error because he missed the fact that predestination has to do with sanctification, not justification.  (This is the reason that “eternal security,” which means that salvation cannot be lost, is correct.)

   Yet theological stars are reversed as Arminius was on a roll refuting predestination, which can be read in The Works of James Arminius; Volume One.  (See “On Predestination; 3. I Reject Predestination for the Following Reasons.”)  I find it bizarre that both Arminius and Calvin each wrote what I deem to be a classic piece; Arminius on the fallacy of “predestination” and Calvin on penal substitution, whereas I deem Arminius to have totally messed up on the penal substitution and Calvin to have totally messed up on “predestination.”  You might not agree with that statement, but may we all agree that these issues need to be examined.  Many Christian schools are neglecting now to have students read the works of either of these men.

   If a person is saved, he or she is baptized by the Holy Spirit, and unlike in Old Testament times before the atonement by Jesus, the Spirit will always stay bonded with a child of God!  To God be the glory that He has given all people free will to receive His gift of salvation in Christ.  And if you chose to believe in Jesus, you are saved from spiritual death, and Jesus will never leave you.

Hunter Irvine

(Revised on 8/24/19)

(1) Howard Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives

(New York: Multnoman Books, 1987), 55.

(2) Don Kistler, ed., Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching

(Morgan, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002), 39.

1 Peter 3:18-22 - The Pinnacle

1 Peter 3:18-22   For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.  He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.  In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.  It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him (NIV).

   We have reached a pinnacle in the book of I Peter.  How exciting!  “Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (I Peter 3:18 NIV).  Who is the “you” referring to?  If double predestination were correct, I could never read this Scripture verse to anyone, because I would not know who the blessed and chosen “you’s” are.  Fact is, Scripture is for anyone, because God loves everyone, and the “you” is any human being.  The choice is ours.  Christ died for you!  You have the choice to receive Him or reject Him.  Jesus Christ died for “all!”
   Speaking of salvation being offered to everyone, we move to Jesus preaching to “…the spirits in prison…”  I love this passage!  It is one many people avoid, and of which there are many different interpretations.  Yet I think it gives insight into a critical Biblical truth.
   George Cramer mentions three of the interpretations: First, some think the Spirit of Christ preached through Noah back when Noah was building the Ark.  (I read one commentary where the person thinks that since all but Noah’s family did not listen then, all but eight from that time were doomed forever.)Second, some think Christ was preaching to evil spirits, proclaiming victory.  Third, the author is convicted Christ did preach to the spirits of people who had not repented and who were in prison in Hades between His death on the cross and His resurrection.  I also take the view that Jesus preached to people in “Hades.”
   What is this prison?  George Cramer gives a quote regarding this issue.  “The Greek word ‘Hades’ translates the Hebrew word ‘Sheol,’ which was the place to which the spirits of all people were believed to pass at death; there they waited until the final judgment; ‘Hades’ must not be confused with ‘Gehenne,’ the place of the lost.” (1)  The last sentence truly distinguishes this prison from “h-ll.”  Thus the word h-ll is probably not appropriate for pre-Christ times, though that word is used in the "Apostle’s Creed" in certain translations.
   So before the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, human beings were sent to a place which we do not know much about other than it had attributes of a waiting area which is probably best termed “Sheol” or“Hades.”  This may sound strange, yet the fact is when Jesus died as the substitutionary atonement on the Cross, He died for every single human being who had ever lived, for every single human being who was currently living, and for every single human being who would ever live.  The atonement of Jesus Christ was not restricted by time!
   When I was a youth pastor years ago, there was a star student in our youth group.  Quite the extraordinary young student, once she did a project for a class at her public school.  She did a plaster of Paris cast of her mom’s arm, and then she attached it to a painting of a sea.  The sea was the Red Sea, and the arm was that of an Egyptian who had been chasing the Hebrews, who was now drowning.  She entitled it something like ‘Reaching out to God.’  Her point was that this Egyptian had realized she had done wrong, and was seeking mercy at the last second.  In actuality, mercy was available to the Egyptians who had enslaved the Hebrews, and who died all those years ago, because Christ died even for them.
   Though details about this prison are few, one thing is for sure: being in that “prison,” there was only one way to be freed, and that was to believe in Jesus, the Messiah who made eternal life possible by his substitutionary death on the cross.
   I add the atonement of Jesus sealed the new covenant which became available for all humanity, even those in Sheol who died before the New Covenant was available.  Plus, the atonement ended the need for Sheol, thus negating the doctrine of purgatory which is a strong Roman Catholic doctrine.
   However, I am claiming Christ offered salvation to everyone in Sheol.  Then why does Peter specifically mention the people from the time of the flood?  In a commentary by J. Ramsey Michaels, he said, “…Christ went and preached ‘even’ to the spirits who were disobedient to God in Noah’s time – i.e., he went to the most remote and unlikely audience imaginable…” (2)  Though I disagree with his overall view on this passage, I think he captures a key concept here.  It is a metaphor that everyone was included.  I am convicted the preaching of Jesus offered salvation to all past humanity back to Adam and Eve.
   Now many Biblical scholars do not agree with this interpretation for a big reason.  They advocate that once a person dies, his or her fate is sealed.  As Louis Barbieri stated, “This interpretation causes further difficulty for it implies the doctrine of a second chance” (3)  I am in disagreement with this, because people did not have a first chance to be saved by Christ before the time of Christ!  Think of all of the peoples in various countries where false gods were the norm in their culture for the thousands of years preceding Christ.  Many of those people knew nothing about Christ, not even the fact of God’s prophecy to the Jewish people of a coming Messiah.
   After Christ was the atonement for sins on the cross, people in Sheol got to hear the Gospel for the first time.  And ever since the atonement of Jesus, heaven is available!  Peter goes on to state Jesus was resurrected!  Then Jesus ascended into heaven, and that is where He is now!
   This is such a debated subject, how appropriate I end with the love of a child.  Once I was a youth pastor at a summer camp for elementary students and junior high students at a place called “Singing River Ranch.”  There was this one sweet elementary student who often wore the camp bandanna on her head.  One evening, the speaker, a minister born, raised, and educated in India, was talking about the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden.  After his talk, that girl raised her hand and asked whether Adam and Eve were going to be saved.  The tone of voice of that precious child was so sincere.  Because of the loving concern of that young student for the two first human beings, I considered that even Adam and/or Eve could have been saved by Jesus, as this passage teaches.  Ladies and gentlemen, the atonement by Jesus on the Cross did not exclude a single human being, and when He preached to the souls in Sheol, it was the opportunity for them to receive Him or reject Him.  And now is the time for any people living in this day and age who have not received Jesus, the One who died in our place as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of us.
Hunter Irvine
(Revised on 8/24/19)

(1) George Cramer, First and Second Peter
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1967), 55.

(2) J. Ramsey Michaels, Word Biblical Commentary,
Volume 49: 1 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1988), 206.

(3) Louis Barbieri, First and Second Peter
(Chicago: Mooday Press, 1975), 70.

1 Peter 3:13-17

1 Peter 3:13-17   Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil (NIV).

   Peter was a Jewish man. I learned in my Interpreting the Bible class at CCU that Hebrew writers often wrote in certain patterns, and this passage has a loose concentric pattern, which is ABCCBA. Doing good; suffering; Christ; hope (which is because of Christ); suffering; doing good.

   Starting off with “A,” Peter is clearly saying to do good. Concerning “B,” Peter is clearly saying that suffering for doing good will have a good result. Now that does not mean that suffering alone is a good thing. Yet this world is fallen, which means there is a general separation from God, and suffering is inevitable for any person following Jesus, the One who suffered the ultimate suffering by taking the sins of all people upon Himself. So we must rely on God to bring us through suffering, and to bring goodness from our suffering.

   Regarding the last verse, we Christians must keep working to distinguish between the suffering we are undergoing which is due to our own sin, as opposed to suffering we are undergoing which is due to being hurt by other people who are in opposition to our Christian convictions and lifestyle. During a period of my life where God was carrying out much transformation in me, I was suffering much for both reasons. I had an anger problem which interfered with my judgment in some serious situations within some friendships. Fortunately God patiently worked on me until I was able to face up to the fact that I had this problem, which was the turning point for me to fully change. Also I was suffering because of my Christian convictions, which involved job trouble and social hardship being in a denomination where there was a big fight at the time concerning whether sex outside of marriage is permissible. I remained steadfast, praise be to God, that God intends for sex to be only for marriage, and that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctified by God as Jesus taught in Matthew 19.

   When I was suffering as a Christian, often such did not seem like a “blessing” on the surface. Yet suffering I experienced because of my Christian convictions was used by God to teach me more and more about Him. The result of knowing God more is that I am more prudent, and able to make better decisions as a Christian. More prudent discernment diminishes suffering, even when someone does something sinful like slander me. I still get hurt by things like slander, however, healing is quick and lessons are learned. Thus, I have suffered much being a disciple of Jesus, yet through that suffering, God has made me a much better person, and things have been getting better for me.

   Thus we get to the pinnacle of “C.” Here in the wake of the three big submission passages, we are presented the ultimate submission. We must submit to Jesus as the Lord. We need Jesus as our Lord to be enabled to do good! We need Jesus as our Lord to persevere when people are slandering us for doing good! We need Jesus as our Lord to maintain hope day by day in this world where there is utter suffering; hope that God is going to bring a good result for those of us under His Lordship.

   Before I was a Christian, my path was so different, void of the problems I have had for simply being a follower of Jesus. Yet I now know that the path I traversed being separated from God was leading to disaster. Following Jesus, being under His Lordship, there have been things that have happened to me, even in the past year, that have been hurtful. Yet God keeps bringing good from it. If you follow Jesus, you will encounter suffering that you would not have otherwise. Yet God will bring good from it.

   Earlier in this commentary I discussed the theology of some early Christians, however I think the greatest value of early Christian writings is their preservation of important Christian history! Clement of Alexandria, who was a Christian teacher between approximately 189 A.D. and 202 A.D., quoted this passage of Scripture in his voluminous writings (1), which is of historical significance since it shows the use of this Epistle by an early Christian. Also, thanks to Tertullian we can know we are receiving God’s messages from an apostle who not only wrote about suffering, but who suffered first hand, even to the point of murder. Both Peter (2) and his wife (3) were murdered in Rome because of their ministry work. They are both in heaven now.

   Just as the Apostles were willing to die for their Lord Jesus, among many others including Peter’s wife, may you and I be willing to live for Jesus.
Hunter Irvine

(1) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1885; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 2:417.
(2) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1885; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 3:350.
(3) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1885; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 2:541.

1 Peter 3:8-12

1 Peter 3:8-12    Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (NIV).

   I mentioned in the last piece how I use to babysit the two greatest kids in the world, a boy and a girl. When they were about three and five, one sunny afternoon we were in the backyard playing t-ball. They had this plastic stand on which we put a plastic baseball, and they would hit it with a plastic baseball bat to myself in the “outfield.” Once when the girl was up to bat, she swung the bat and smacked the ball. Rather than going straight, it went flying at an odd angle and hit the boy in the leg who was simply walking along the grass. It was such a fluke shot that she started laughing, and I chuckled. The boy did not think it was funny. That lad, who is the sweetest boy in the world, got mad, thinking his sister had been aiming at him, and he probably was hurt that we had been laughing at the event. When he got up to bat, he turned his body away from the main “outfield,” and was aiming straight for his sister. As she moved, he kept rotating his body, trying to position himself to hit his sister.

   I went to him, and turned him around so that he was facing the “outfield,” and I told him with sincerity, “Don’t try and hit your sister. It was an accident. She was not trying to hit you.” If she had hit him on purpose, we would have needed a serious time out, and there would have been a call for an apology, and forgiveness.

   When someone does something hurtful to me, my natural reaction is to get revenge. God totally changes my natural reaction. Verse 9 here is explaining the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:39, where there is the controversial verse: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”(NIV). I have come to be convicted that Jesus is not a masochist. Rather Jesus was teaching for us not to carry out our natural tendency to get revenge. And in addition, Jesus even teaches that we need to forgive people who do evil which results in us getting hurt. This does not mean that we have to stay in a line of abuse. And we are still permitted to carry out actions which will cease further evil action. Each situation is different and calls for individual discernment.

   Yet Scripture contains the radical message that Christians must live a life that goes against the norms of society. Christianity is not an institution, rather it is a way of life. And that way of life includes becoming more like Jesus, who is good, thus it is a way of life embracing goodness, not evil. Lying, swearing, stealing, malice, deceit; these are all actions that are rampant in our culture, and even backed up with excuses to justify the implantation. Yet they are evil. We followers of Jesus must rely one hundred percent on God to be enabled to be changed so that we do that which is good, which includes our mode of forgiving people; the call of a child of God.

   Also, as others continue to go about doing wrong, we can rest assured, as verse 12 teaches, that God is going to hold people accountable, sooner or later, for the wrong they have done, such as lying, swearing, stealing, malice, and deceit. God is the ultimate judge, and may we followers of Jesus trust His judgment, the same One who has given every person the opportunity to be saved and changed by the atonement Jesus made on the Cross.
Hunter Irvine

1 Peter 3:1-7

1 Peter 3:1-7 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers (NIV).

   If you came to my room and dug through the boxes in my closet which contain dozens of journals which I have written in over the past fifteen years, you would find many commentaries like this one. In fact the Bible studies and journaling I have done over the past fifteen years have prepared me to do this commentary on 1 Peter. No one has ever read any of those commentaries, no one, yet God used that studying and writing to prepare me for this I Peter commentary which many people are reading. I am honored God has given me such an opportunity to share with others my writing!

   And if you started reading various journals from years past, besides finding Bible commentaries in them, you would also find my repeated prayer requests amidst the journal pages. One consistent prayer request, for long over a decade, has been the desire for a wife. Once when I was a youth pastor in Grand Junction, Colorado, I asked students to name a dream. Going around the room, each student had the opportunity to share a dream that he or she had. I went first, and I stated how my dream to be a youth pastor had come true, and that another dream which had yet to come true was that I wanted to one day be married. That was sixteen years ago. It is a dream which has not even come close to coming true in sixteen years. I learned long ago that being a writer entails being vulnerable, so I go all out and admit that even in my journal notebook of these past four months, there are prayer requests for a girlfriend with the hopes of being married. It is in God’s hands.

   So I have lived many years being “single,” but this passage is not some foreign territory for me, because I have been in a loving covenant relationship with Jesus. And being in such a loving relationship, there is a need to submit. And I have been in loving relationships with dear brothers and sisters in Christ. When you are in such a relationship, there is a need to submit. I have even babysat my friend’s two super duper children. In doing so, I am the adult whom they have to obey, yet in order to be a loving caretaker, there is the need to submit, even to young children. If you think you do not need to submit to children as a loving caretaker, you have never prepared a meal for a three and a five year old. “What’s taking you so long!!” That is a question I have heard more than once from hungry children. The reason for submission in loving relationships is that in a personal loving relationship, there is the desire to share, and sharing involves submitting.

   For example, yesterday I went shopping for a Mother’s Day present for my stepmom. I did not even gain a stepmom until I was an adult, and I live in a different state. Though I talk with my dad much, I hardly ever even talk with my stepmom. But she is my stepmom, and I love her. So yesterday, in a sense I submitted to her, and I spent a small portion of my day shopping for a Mother’s Day gift for her. It did not seem like “submission.” In fact I had a good feeling when I bought her what I thought was a cool gift. If I love someone, and I find a cool gift for them, I am happier purchasing that gift for them than I would be purchasing a cool gift for myself.

   Though many people get derailed by the language of this passage, the message of this passage is straight forward. If you are married, you need to love your spouse, even if he or she is not a follower of Jesus, and in order to love your spouse, you need to submit. Remember to apply the Biblical interpretation rules given by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. If you did not read my blog entry on 1 Peter 2:13-17, please do. In looking at the spirit rather than the letter here, obviously submission does not mean going along with your spouse if he or she is doing something wrong.  And for a spouse being subject to abuse, there is a need to get outside help immediately!

   And for guys who are reading what Peter is saying to wives, know that the second principle of interpretation goes right alongside the first, with the second being that you need to put the passage in the proper Biblical context. Just as Abraham Lincoln had the correct interpretation by applying the Golden Rule to slavery, likewise the correct interpretation here is to apply the Golden rule to marriage. The Golden Rule: “…do to others what you would have them do to you…”(Matthew 7:12 NIV). Guys, if you think this passage is a divine license to boss around your wife, you are wrong. No sane person likes to be bossed around, so do not boss others around. Some guys would never boss around their business partner. They are a team; they negotiate; they compromise. But then they will boss around their wife. That is not being a loving partner! Yes, men are called to lead households. But neither men nor women are called to be bossy. If you want to know who is the best boss is for your marriage, the Bible exposes that answer. The best boss is God!

   I have a friend who is a great guy, and someone who is utterly devoted to Jesus. He said publically once how his marriage was rough for the first several years, because as a newlywed he committed to the model that he was supposed to be in charge, and that his wife was supposed to submit. Fortunately he learned the error of this model, he sees God as the boss of them both, he better understands his role as a leader, and his marriage now is great. If you want to have a happy marriage, whatever your gender, submit first and foremost to God, and then submit to your spouse. Being single for many years, and being the “Christian guy,” I have had the unique opportunity to see people who have marriage struggles, and they are often rooted in the same problem: selfishness. Do know that all of us need improvement on this. Love involves self-sacrifice. For the willing, God enables.
Hunter Irvine

1 Peter 2:18-25

1 Peter 2:18-25   Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (NIV).

   I consider this to be one of the most important pieces I have ever written, because misinterpretation of this passage has resulted in some Christians supporting horrible human suffering, including in the United States before the victory of the Union in the Civil War.

   Note this epistle passage is addressed to slaves, and no one else. Obviously that means there is a certain context here to adhere to. If you did not read my last blog concerning the principles of interpretation by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, reading that piece will help clarify principles we must apply here. To summarize the first two principles, in my own wording, the first is that we must not get bogged down in semantics, but rather gain the message of the passage. Why? Because semantics are a starting point, not an end point.  They are the means to a goal, not the goal.  For example, if I only focused on the first two words here in this passage, "Slaves, submit," that would be enough to derail me from getting at what Peter is really saying here.  In fact, if I focused on only those two words, I would not learn anything from this letter.

   The second principle is that we must take this passage in the context of the chapter, book, and even the entire Bible. Why? The Bible contains messages inspired by God which were given in specific historical and literary contexts. God’s eternal messages are not bound by context, yet they were given in context, and discernment is needed. Just as Paul gives an analogy of the parts of a body working together for the whole, similarly, the sixty-six books of the Bible, all of which were inspired by God, are like parts of a body. They function as a part of a whole.  Granted there is such a scope of certain books that a person could gain a knowledge of Jesus by just reading that single book.  However, the entire inspired Scripture works as a whole, and that was God's intention.  Thirdly, we must interpret by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

   So first, the institution of slavery is not endorsed. It may sound like it is off the top, considering that a comparison is made between slavery and the sacrifices made by Jesus. Yet at the same time, Peter is not endorsing “hurling insults.” And Peter is definitely not endorsing murder, though Jesus suffered abuse and was murdered. In fact, Peter states that Jesus entrusted Himself to the Father who “judges justly.” Peter is saying that wrongdoings will be judged.

   The second principle requires us to look at other Scripture. Guess who I think got this one right? Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s argument: “…he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it”(1). The reasoning fits the teaching of Jesus, who said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12 NIV). No sane person wants to be a slave, therefore no person should enslave another human being! To do so is going against the teaching of Jesus that used to be well known as “the Golden Rule.”

   In my country, the United States of America, before and during the Civil War, there were some Christians who misinterpreted this passage. Two examples are Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, and Leonidas Polk, an Episcopal Bishop. Both served as generals in the Confederate military.

   I recommend the classic movie The Robe. The movie shows how an evil cylinder in the machine of the Roman Empire was slavery. Peter was never supporting slavery. He was simply telling slaves to be witnesses for Christ even when in the horrible circumstance of being a slave. You can see that played out in The Robe.

   I close with a quote from Abraham Lincoln, who made this statement a few days after signing the “Emancipation Proclamation,” in response to a sick joke: “It is a momentous thing to be the instrument under Providence for the liberation of a race”(2). May we Christians be reminded from this passage that all people, the human race, have been made in the image of God, and that all people have sinned. All of us human beings need Jesus, the Savior and Good Shepherd, and we blessed children of God sometimes do need to suffer as we witness the love of Christ to those who are lost. Jesus commands us all to love our fellow human beings (Matthew 12:29-31), and that entails enslaving no one!

Hunter Irvine

(1) Ralph Newman, ed., Lincoln for the Ages (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960), 279-280.

(2) Ralph Newman, ed., Lincoln for the Ages (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960), 235.

1 Peter 2:13-17

1 Peter 2:13-17  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.  For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.  Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.  Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king (NIV).

          We have reached a new section in this text which contains a word which many deem to be controversial: “submit.”  There really is no controversy here, rather a need for careful interpretation.  I will take the three “submit” points one at a time, yet before I do, I introduce all three with two principles of interpretation given by the minister Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his classic book on the Sermon on the Mount.  Principle one of Biblical interpretation: “… no part of this Sermon can be understood truly except in the light of the whole”(1).  He is specifying the Sermon on the Mount, yet the principle applies to the entire Bible.  When studying a passage of the Bible, you need to take a verse in the context of the passage, a passage in the context of the chapter, and the chapter in the context of the book, and the book within the context of the entire Bible.

          Second principle of Biblical interpretation: “… never consider the letter apart from the spirit”(2).  Dr. Lloyd-Jones states earlier on, “I do feel constantly the need to warn myself and everybody else against becoming so immersed in the mechanics of Scripture that we miss its message”(3).  Now Dr. Lloyd-Jones had much more to saying about interpreting the Bible, and others have obviously given some important points of Biblical interpretation, but I think these are two key points. Scripture was not given in a vacuum, rather it was given in human history contexts, and in different literary styles.  This is a critical point.  Neglecting to apply what is called “exegesis,” which is “… the careful historical, literary, and theological analysis of a text”(4), will lead to misinterpretation.  And more than anything, not putting Scripture into the context of the book that it is in will cause misinterpretation.

       I think Dr. Lloyd-Jones makes a wonderful musical presentation analogy in that chapter.  There is a certain art in listening to the messages of God in Scripture.  And any Bible artist needs assistance from the Holy Spirit.  This is a third principle of Biblical interpretation!  Just as Jesus enlightened the two disciples who were on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:27, we folks need the Spirit of Christ to enlighten us.  So as we began this section, I truly say, “Help me Holy Spirit.”

          What do we have here in this passage?  It is a general statement.  The point really is not that people are supposed to go around giving allegiance to horrible leaders as well as good leaders.  Let us interpret this passage in the context of the Bible.  In the Old Testament, God had originally determined for the Israelites to be ruled by judges.  It was only because the people cried out to Samuel to have a king like other nations that God permitted them to have a king.  And God warned them of the negative consequences, which took place as He said they would.  Kings of Israel and Judah were usually bad.  Most of the kings did evil, whereas only a few kings did good.

          And how about those Roman emperors who persecuted Christians.  It was horrible.  And there have been numerous evil leaders since.  Then in the century of my birth, there was one of the most evil leaders in human history.  And now here in this day and age, you have people like me who advocate republics like our great United States of America where there is democracy, and who renounce kingships and dictatorships altogether.

          Two thousand years ago, Peter was not denying that there had been bad rulers in the history of humanity, and he was not saying that Roman emperors were God’s gift to mankind.  He is saying that as a general principle, people need to submit to authority, authority which keeps sin in check.  My country is the U.S.  I have never been to a town in the U.S. that did not have police officers or a sheriff.  In our country where we are blessed to have so many freedoms, without the support of such authority, there would be horrible results.  Any country which has a civil government is a country where there is the potential for goodness to be bestowed to the citizens.

          Christians are to be first and foremost citizens of the kingdom of heaven.  However, we are still supposed to be concerned with what is going on in the world.  In the Lord’s Prayer, we say, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  God’s intention is not for Christians to bail out of civil society, rather Christians should be model citizens, respecting authority rather than rebelling against authority in general.

          Back around 1995, my friend was working on a PhD at Cornell University.  He is a great Christian man, and he was in a wonderful fellowship with a small group of fellow Christian graduate students, men and women.  I visited him one weekend, and I attended his church that Sunday.  The minister preached on Romans 13:1-7, and I thought his sermon was exceptional.  He made the specific point that Christians are to obey rulers unless the rulers make laws that prohibit expressing the Gospel, which was a specific instruction of Jesus.  That is why Christians can smuggle Bibles into various countries.  I agree, but I would take it even further saying that any laws that go against any of the teachings of Jesus do not need to be obeyed.  The reason is that Paul in Romans, and Peter here in his epistle, were never advocating that anyone needs to submit to an evil ruler or laws that require sinful actions.  They are giving a general principle that Christians are not to make church laws their binding legal principles, and then scoff at secular laws.  Under the persecution that the early Church faced, there was a need to often go underground.  Look what ended up happening to the author of this epistle.  Peter was crucified by the Roman government!  Yet Peter is clearly teaching that Christians are not to bail out on the world!  In fact, Christians who are so passionate should even participate in civil government.

          Near the end of this verse, Peter mentions the importance of the brotherhood of believers.  Church communities are important!  Likewise, we Christians are called to be lights in the world.  There is a time for Christian conclaves, and there is a time to be out there in the thick of it.
Hunter Irvine

(1)            D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies in the Sermon on the Mount: One Volume Edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 22.
(2)            D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies in the Sermon on the Mount: One Volume Edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 29.
(3)            D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies in the Sermon on the Mount: One Volume Edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 21.
(4)            Michael Gorman Elements of Biblical Exegesis; A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers (Peabody, Massachusetts.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 8.