Peter indeed speaks of sin in a concrete way in his letter, so that in verse 3, he proceeds to list some of the evil behaviors that believers have abandoned: "For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do – living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry."

The word for "debauchery" (aselgeia) is variously translated "licentiousness," "lasciviousness," and "wantonness" in the KJV. It characterizes a person who has no moral restraints, especially when it comes to his sexual behavior. The same word is also used in Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:19, and Ephesians 4:19. The word for "lust" (epithymia) here is the same one for "evil desires" back in 1:14, which we have already discussed. It refers to a longing for that which is contrary to holiness and decency. In the previous verse (4:2, "evil human desires"), it is contrasted against "the will of God."

"Drunkenness" (oinophlygia) comes from a compound word that means an overflow of wine, or as the KJV has it, it is an "excess of wine." The "orgies" (komos) refer to banquets, feasts, and parties that are given to sexual immorality and excessive drinking. These are often associated with pagan worship. Similarly, "carousing" (potos) can refer to a drinking party or drinking bout.

Finally, the "detestable idolatry" (athemitoi eidololatriai) is literally lawless or illegal idolatry. Grudem thinks that this cannot mean "against God's law," since all idol worship is against God's law. Therefore, he claims, the term must be referring to pagan practices so immoral that they are forbidden by the human civil government. But the reason is insufficient for such an inference. It could be that the term merely stresses the detestable nature of idolatry. Such a usage would not be strange. The other instance of the term appears in Acts 10:28, where it refers to the Mosaic law. In any case, Paul writes that "the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons" (1 Corinthians 10:20), and it is in this context of pagan worship rituals that the previous items are often practiced.

A number of Peter's readers have been converted to Christianity from this background. This is the kind of life that they used to live, but Peter says to them, "For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do." The "for" connects this back to the previous verse, which says that the Christian should spend "the rest of his earthly life" living for the will of God and not for evil human desires. This implies that when he says that they have "spent enough time" in paganism, he means that the time prior to their conversion has been wasted. Now as Christians, they must spend the rest of their lives serving God instead, for this is the only worthy use of our years.

In light of verses 2 and 3, consider again what Peter means by "done with sin" in verse 1. He is not asserting that anyone who identifies with Christ in his death and resurrection will immediately achieve sinlessness in his behavior. Indeed, in Christ we have been made perfect, since his perfection has been imputed to us. But Peter speaks about sin in concrete terms – Christians have departed from the kind of life described in verses 2 and 3. Those who are still "living in" these things exhibit no sign of conversion at all.

Making a complete and permanent break from a sinful lifestyle because of faith in Christ will often draw opposition from sinners. One of Peter's major reasons for writing this letter is to encourage believers in persecution and to instruct them on how to deal with it. He writes in verse 4, "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you." When considered both in the historical and the general context, a person's Christian faith might be interpreted by unbelievers in several ways that lead to their hostile reactions.

The Christian may be considered impious or sacrilegious. This may sound strange until we remember that the Christian is one who has abandoned and renounced all the pagan gods. This point is still relevant in many cultures of the world, and the principle applies to situations other than a person's departure from paganism. For example, Judaism, although it now has very little to do with Old Testament religion, is not paganism; nevertheless, one who is converted to Christianity might be cut off from the family. A similar reason for the unbelievers' wrath is that a departure from the pagan religions and rituals might be considered an insult to ancestors.

A Christian may find that, once he leaves behind a life of drunkenness and sexual immorality, he no longer has much in common with his friends and neighbors. Thus in their eyes the Christian faith has made him antisocial. Nowadays, some Christians have made it an important aspect of evangelism to prove to unbelievers that Christianity is not boring and that Christians can have fun. But we wonder if a Christianity that is not boring to unbelievers is still Christianity. And if Christians can have fun, they certainly cannot have the kind of fun that many non-Christians enjoy. The truth is that they should no longer consider those things fun at all.

While Christian devotion, ministry, and worship are indeed great fun, it is silly to even make this a point in evangelism. Truth is to be affirmed whether one finds it boring or exciting. And if the hearer finds it boring, we should attack him for having this attitude rather than to present the faith as an accommodating lifestyle. It will never be satisfying until the faith is so compromised that it is destroyed, or until God transforms the person's heart and grants him new attitudes and desires.

It is true that there is a misconception concerning Christianity that should be corrected, and that is the idea that believers cannot enjoy God's creation at all. Scripture teaches otherwise, and says, "God…richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment" (1 Timothy 6:17). But one cannot infer from this permission to do just about anything that he wishes to do. The apostle certainly does not mean that God provides prostitutes for our enjoyment. Neither can we participate in idolatry, homosexuality, drunkenness, any kind of obscenity, coarse joking (Ephesians 5:4), and many other activities that unbelievers enjoy.

The result is that, compared to the range of things that unbelievers wish to do, Christian enjoyment remains extremely narrow and restricted. Many times Christians argue to widen the range of things that are considered permissible – not to remove stumbling blocks for unbelievers, but to justify their own lusts. How many times have I heard the objection, "But Jesus went to parties"? Yes, he did. But what kind of parties did he attend? Did he go to drinking parties (not just parties where there were drinking)? Did he go to parties where there were sexual promiscuity? And what did he do once he was there? Did he do nothing more than to socialize and enjoy the food and drinks? Or did he take over the parties to teach the people?

Yes, Jesus went to parties, wedding feasts, and banquets; therefore, at least in principle, we may as well. But we need to consider the kinds of parties and feasts that we are going to, our motives for attending, and what we will do once we get there. Of all the people who said to me, "But if I go, then perhaps I may preach to them," not one has actually preached to the people. The reason is obvious. They wanted to socialize, not evangelize, and they wanted approval for something that they knew to be questionable. If they had really intended to preach the gospel, they would have gone and did it without asking me. But they used the mere possibility that they might preach to the people as the license to live like they did before they became Christians.

To prevent misunderstanding, I am not saying that a Christian must not even attend an unbeliever's birthday party or a wedding feast without taking it over with the preaching of the gospel. No, as long as there is no blatant immorality, a believer may attend, but he must not justify something with the mere possibility or intention of preaching the gospel when he knows full well that he is not going to do any of it. But if the situation is, say, a bachelor party that promises heavy drinking, coarse jokes, and sexual immorality, then a Christian must not attend unless he seizes it for the gospel so that these things do not happen at all.

What I sometimes find is that those who constantly advocate the "cultural mandate" and the "goodness of all creation" – true doctrines when correctly formulated – condemn those who do not participate in these things. But whether they are in the wrong depends on their reasons to abstain. As stated earlier in the commentary, we must not interpret the example of Jesus in a way that condemns John the Baptist, since Scripture approves them both.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link