Commentary on First Peter (35)
Peter has a very low view of the non-Christian life, the life that his readers lived before they were converted to Christ. In fact, if you will study and consider all the ways that non-Christians have been described in the Bible by the prophets and the apostles, and by Jesus himself, you would realize that this is one area in which contemporary Christians have made their greatest compromise.
This compromise is made not only by those who are often accused of affirming a man-centered theology, such as the Liberals and the Arminians, but also by those who supposedly hold to a God-centered theology, such as the Reformed Christians. They are unwilling to follow what the Scripture actually teaches on how to talk to and talk about unbelievers. Instead, they stress some biblical verses and ignore others, and those that they emphasize, they take out of context and accommodate their interpretations in ways that reinforce the current cultural standard for social interaction.
The result is that the unbelievers are making the rules on how we view them and relate to them. This might weaken the offense of the gospel, but it is not as if the unbelievers will thank us for it. And aside from the fact that to dilute the word of God like this makes us unfaithful stewards of the truth, the problem is that part of the power of our message is in its sting. If you remove the teeth and the claws from an animal, you might make it more approachable, but then you also permit people to ignore it altogether.
Rather than using the same words or the same categories of words to describe the non-Christians in preaching and in conversation, they tend to restrict themselves to using technical theological terms to label the unbelieving condition. So we talk about the "depravity" of the unbelievers. This is entirely appropriate, but what does it mean? The Bible refers to them as dogs, snakes, trash, and even excrement. We talk about the "blindness" of those who refuse the gospel. And what does that mean? The Bible refers to them as brutes and morons.
In an attempt to reconcile how Scripture looks at the unbelievers and how they would like to look at the unbelievers, Christians have made a sharp distinction between the beliefs and behaviors of the non-Christians and the non-Christians themselves. So they say to the unbelievers, "You are smart, but you believe and do some very stupid things." But why do people believe stupid things? It is because they are stupid! Stupid people believe stupid things, else why are they stupid at all?
The same people might become indignant if it is suggested that Hitler was in fact the most compassionate person in history, but it just happened that he did cruel things all the time. No, if a person does evil all the time, it is because he is an evil person. The Bible does not make the distinction between the beliefs and behaviors of a person and the person himself. In fact, the beliefs and behaviors of a person are the things that define or exhibit the nature of the person. Thus a low view of the non-Christian life must necessarily translate into a low view of the non-Christians.
Commentary on First Peter (34)
In verse 23, Peter again makes a contrast between the perishable and the imperishable. He wishes to make the difference clear to his readers. Earlier in verse 7, he has said that although even gold could perish, faith refined by fire will prove genuine and result in praise and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Then, in verse 18, he makes the contrast between "perishable things" like silver and gold, and "the precious blood of Christ," which is "without blemish or defect."
In verses 24-25, Peter draws from Isaiah 40:6-8, and says that all men are like grass and all their glory is like flowers. Just as grass withers and flowers fall, men perish and their glory fades away. Then all their accomplishments and all their boastings become nothing. This is another reason why unbelievers are not to be envied. They strive hard to accumulate wealth and to win respect. They strive hard for glory and to leave a legacy. But then "the Lord blows on them" (Isaiah 40:7), and everything they worked for turns to dust.
Scripture exposes the futility of the non-Christian life, and this enrages the unbelievers. While the elect are raised from spiritual death and awakened from their spiritual slumber to faith in Jesus Christ, the reprobates are hardened, so that they would rather destroy the Christian faith and persecute God's people than to repent of their sins. However, the Christian life, the Christian faith, and the Christian community can never be destroyed. It is built on the indestructible, living and enduring word of God (v. 23-25).
Peter applies this truth to his readers. Even though their persecutors might appear to stand strong at the moment, their strength and glory are transitory, and will wither and fade. But the word of the Lord stands forever. And this word is the gospel that was preached to his readers, and which they have believed.
This is to be our attitude when we face persecution today. Whatever we are facing, we must first recall that God's work is indestructible because it is built on God's living and enduring word. Christians are not produced by societies, traditions, by men's free will, or by accident – they are the product of God's word. So even though men may destroy the bodies, their souls are forever secure through Christ, and the works that they have done in God will never fade. The church is not a man-made institution, but as Jesus declared, "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18). The church is indestructible.
Non-Christians may attack the Bible – they can write books against it and make films about it. Certainly, we should answer their arguments and allegations against Scripture. But even before we begin, we can have the confidence that critics and skeptics may come and go – many have been discredited, and still many will come in the future – but the Bible will stand forever.
This is why, although I care very much about the state of the church, and although I am jealous for God's honor, I am never afraid of new attacks, arguments, and theories against Scripture and against the Christian faith. I am never afraid that one day they will manage to discredit the Christian faith, so that everyone will look at it at nothing more than myths and fables. It will never happen. The non-Christians will never win the intellectual battle against our faith.
Neither can they use political power nor even physical force to wipe out the church. Prisons and guns are nothing against God's omnipotence. Yes, they might jail one brother there and kill a sister there. But I am never afraid that one day the unbelievers will seize all the Bibles and burn them. I am never afraid that one day they will kill off all the Christians.
The Christian faith is a work of God, and as such, it is indestructible. Therefore, although we must preach and defend the faith with all zeal, let us do nothing out from fear of the unbelievers. When we consider the unbelievers in light of God's will and power, and in the light of the church's sure foundation, we will regard them as impotent fools, and their attacks as nothing.
Commentary on First Peter (33)
Again, Peter says in verse 17 that because we have a Father "who judges each man's work impartially," we must therefore "live as strangers here in reverent fear." The grammatical, contextual, and theological considerations make it unlikely that he is referring to the final judgment. It seems that he is instead speaking of the Father's present judging activities, and from this he draws an application about how believers should behave in the world. Thus the "fear" refers to a fear for the parental discipline that Christians would receive from their heavenly Father, who examines our conduct in justice and righteousness, regardless of who we are before the eyes of men.
Grudem is without question correct in saying that the translation "reverent fear" is "too comfortable for modern readers." Nowadays it is common to teach that to "fear" God is merely to show "reverence" or to be at "awe" toward him, and it is sometimes even reduced to mere "respect." These are diluted versions that make the idea more acceptable or sound more pleasant to those holding to modern assumptions about what true religion ought to be like. However, all biblical evidence compels us to preserve in the fear of God the idea of terror – of being afraid, of being scared. What a believer should be afraid of is another question. Christians are not supposed to fear final condemnation, but it does not follow that all sense of terror should be eliminated.
A child might be quite afraid of being disciplined by his father. This fear regulates his conduct and keeps him from trouble. And because he does not yield to peer pressure to participate in foolish and immoral activities, he might become a stranger to those around him. Others might make fun of him or even ostracize him. He might feel pressured, but still he is unmoved, for he fears his father's displeasure and discipline more than he fears those who would press him to do wrong, and this fear in fact gives him the courage to resist their temptations. This fear is not a mere respect for his father, but there is a real sense of terror to it.
But although the child fears his father this way, he might at the same time feel very secure about his place in the family. Although he makes mistakes and incites his father's anger on occasions, the thought that his father might cast him out of the family never crosses his mind. So the child feels secure in his relationship to his father, but he feels fear at the thought of receiving discipline from him. These are the two necessary aspects to a healthy parent-child relationship. There is no conflict or paradox here, since we are referring to two different aspects of a relationship, and not two contradictory things about one aspect of a relationship.
Similarly, it is possible to have a genuine fear of our heavenly Father's displeasure even though we are assured of our salvation and confident of our place in his family, and that we will not be finally condemned or cast away. Again, this fear is not mere reverence, or awe, or respect, but it entails a real sense of terror. It is to be afraid to offend our Father and incur his discipline.
This fear, and the awareness that he judges every man's work, regulates our conduct and keeps us from sin. And because our fear of God is greater than our fear of man, it actually gives us the courage to resist temptations. Although holy living makes us strangers to the unbelievers, so that they may make fun of us, ostracize us, or even persecute us, our fear of God also gives us the strength to endure their ill-treatment, for what is man's wrath compared to God's displeasure?
Therefore, the fear of God is far from being an oppressive thing, and it is by no means contrary to having love and security in our relationship with our Father. But it keeps us from temptations, and empowers us to become bold witnesses for Christ in this hostile world.
Then, because we have been adopted into this new heavenly family, just as God has become our Father through Jesus Christ, other believers have become our brothers and sisters. Our natural family might misunderstand us or even disown us for becoming Christians, and the whole world might hate us and persecute us, but comfort and acceptance ought to be given to every believer from his own heavenly family.
Sadly, we do not always find this to be the case in the church. Instead, we find jealousy, rivalry, gossip, deceit, hypocrisy, and all kinds of destructive attitudes and behaviors among those who call themselves Christians. Infighting is especially dangerous when the church is under attack from the world. But sin is irrational, and cares little for consequences, or about right and wrong. So Peter reminds us to love one another sincerely and fervently (v. 22), and to rid from among us all malice, all deceit, all hypocrisy, all envy, and all evil speaking (2:1).
Commentary on First Peter (32)
Peter writes in verse 17, "Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." The context is the command, "Be holy, because I am holy," as well as the fact that the elect have been redeemed from their previous empty way of life at a great cost, that is, the precious blood of Christ. In light of this, and in light of the fact that we call on a Father who "judges each man's work impartially," we are to, first, "live as strangers," and second, to do so "in reverent fear."
The word translated "impartially" is rendered "without respect of persons" in the KJV. The KJV is closer to the literal meaning (the word literally means, "does not receive face"), and preserves a significant nuance. A better modern translation might be something like "without regard for persons." But we still have to know what it means, and as it is, some people have misunderstood it or inferred the wrong things from it.
The most obvious error is to think that this means God does not respect anybody, or that he disrespects everybody. A translation like "impartial" would prevent this interpretation, but this allows a different error, and that is to think that God treats everybody the same way. Of course, this is a widespread theological error that comes from imposing on God what is supposedly a righteous standard when it comes to human relationships. However, it is not even true that we must treat everybody exactly the same way in our human relationships in order to deal righteously.
God certainly does not treat everyone the same way. Some are born in poor families, while others are born into comfort and luxury. Some are born under abusive parents and relatives, while others are born into families that exhibit all the semblance of love and care that the beastly nature of unconverted people can produce. Some are born into idolatrous countries, while others are born under the light of the gospel.
More significantly, no matter what situation one is born into, and no matter what circumstances one subsequently encounters, some are chosen for salvation and to believe the gospel, while others are chosen for damnation, so that either they never hear the gospel, or they are made to reject it by divine power even if it is preached to them.
Another false inference from the idea that God is "impartial" is that, not only does God treat everybody the same way, but he treats everybody in a good way and with the same measure of kindness. This is certainly not the case, as he does not provide even the same natural benefits to everyone, and regarding salvation, he is most unkind and ungracious to the reprobates.
When Paul writes in Romans 2:11, "For God does not show favoritism," he is not talking about something pleasant at all. Rather, we read from verse 12, "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." He is not saying that God treats everybody the same way, with the same measure of goodness, or that everybody is subject to the same blessing. But he is saying that, whether Jew or Gentile, every person is subject to condemnation! In other words, God does not care who you are – whether you are Jew or Gentile, whether you are a king or a beggar – he will damn you just the same, for "there is no respect of persons with God" (KJV).
If you are someone great with men, God is greater than you; if you are someone who has been cheated and abused by society, God will still hold you responsible for your sins, and you cannot play the victim before him. Just because you are rich and powerful does not mean that God will save you or have any regard for you; on the other hand, just because all men think that you are a "nobody" does not mean that God thinks that way about you as well. Of course God discriminates between persons, but he does not discriminate according to the way that men discriminate. He discriminates according to his own sovereign plans and purposes, and not according to what is in the person that he is looking at.
So the Bible does not teach that God treats everybody the same way – he does not treat everybody the same way, but he does measure everyone by the same righteous standard, so that everyone appears guilty before him. Then, he redeems some and condemns the rest – not giving everyone the same treatment, but he sovereignly chooses without regard for the stature, the position, or any condition or merit in the individuals. The difference rests in his sovereign will, and not in the individuals themselves. Regardless of whom he is dealing with, he judges according to his own righteous standard, and he treats people in different ways according to his own sovereign will. In this way, he is "no respecter of persons."
As you can see, the errors under consideration are not inherent in translations like "impartial," "favoritism," or "play favorites," for these are in fact acceptable. Instead, they come from people's prejudices about what is good and just, and about what God must be like in order to be good and just. And then a word like "impartial" triggers in them thoughts about what the Bible must mean, when it might be talking about something quite different.
Commentary on First Peter (31)
Now, the non-Christians' empty way of life is often handed down to them by their forefathers (v. 18). Sometimes the family has lived as unbelievers for generations, and the latest generation is expected to perpetuate the traditions, values, and beliefs of the family. These might include various forms of idolatry, like Buddhism, paganism, and ancestor worship. Some families pass on traditions of crime, of violence and drug abuse. Many pass on a heritage of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and of "open-mindedness" to irrational thinking and licentious living.
Rich families can appear refined and proper, and outwardly they have just about everything that any depraved man could desire. But of course their way of life is no less futile than everyone else's. As with others, they hand down a tradition of pride, selfishness, hypocrisy, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). And parents everywhere today hand down a tradition of blasphemy – teaching their children atheism, evolution, feminism, and the like.
But now God is our Father (v. 17). As Christians, we have been accepted into a new family, so that we are now inheriting new traditions and learning new values. We have been saved from our old families along with their irrational superstitions (from paganism to scientism), deviant lifestyles, false teachings, false priorities, and false values.
Old beliefs and habits might be hard to break. We must make a conscious effort to rid ourselves of the old traditions and patterns, or else we will continue to conform to them in various ways (v. 14). But it is not as if we have simply changed places – we have been reborn into this new family by divine power. We are a new creation in Christ Jesus. We can throw off the yolk of past generations and begin anew. The old traditions will try to force us back into its mold, but now we have the strength to refuse according to the sovereign work that God continues to perform in us (Ephesians 2:10; Philippians 2:13). Now we can leave all of that behind us.
Commentary on First Peter (30)
Verse 20 says that Christ was "chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." This tells us what we have suggested above, that redemption was not an afterthought or even a reaction to sin, but it had been God's decree for Christ to redeem the elect by his blood even before creation.
We can say something here about the order of the eternal decrees, and in connection with this, supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Now, because God is eternal and omniscient, there is not a point in his thinking when he does not know everything or when he has not decided everything; therefore, when we speak of order in the mind of God, we are referring to logical order and not chronological order.
Infralapsarianism confuses the order of design or purpose with the order of execution. It complains that in supralapsarianism, God decrees the identities of the reprobates without a view to their sinfulness. But I have established elsewhere that reprobation is unconditional, so this complaint poses no problem.
Moreover, as we have mentioned above, when we consider the plan of God from the ultimate perspective of his glory, then even reprobation is to serve the purpose of redemption – that is, to define those whom Christ would not redeem – and not the other way around. In the order of the eternal decrees, once God has decided that there would be the elect and the reprobates, then he decrees that mankind would fall into sin to make this possible.
On the other hand, in infralapsarianism, at the point when God decrees the fall of man, he does so without knowing why or what he would do about it! But if he has redemption in mind, and thus the distinction between the elect and the reprobates, so that he knows why he is decreeing the fall of man, then he has already decided on redemption, and thus this becomes supralapsarianism.
Of course the execution of redemption comes after man's fall into sin. But in the order of design or purpose, a person first envisions the end that he wishes to achieve, and then he decides on the means by which he would achieve it. Infralapsarianism would necessarily mean that God decrees the fall of man without knowing why he does it or what would come after it. This is just another way of saying that infralapsarianism is logically impossible.
So the glory of God comes first in the order of the eternal decrees, and to achieve this, the decree is made that Christ would subdue all things under the Father. On the way to achieve this is the decree that Christ would redeem from fallen humanity chosen individuals to become his fellow heirs – thus fallen humanity would be divided into the elect and the reprobates. In order to achieve this, the decree is made that all of humanity would fall into sin. Then, in order to achieve this, the decree is made that God would create humanity. This is the order of design or purpose. The order is reversed in execution, so that creation comes first, and the plan of God culminates in his glory.
The major objection against the supralapsarian scheme essentially amounts to an opposition to the idea that God could designate the identities of the reprobates before he decrees their fall into sin. In supralapsarianism, God first decrees that there would be reprobates, and then he decrees the fall so that these reprobates could materialize. Again, the objection is against unconditional reprobation. To put it another way, the objection is against God's absolute sovereignty, or the fact that God is God.
Then, in turn, the objection against unconditional reprobation is that it is unjust – that is, not according to any standard stated in Scripture, but according to man's sinful intuition. He is uncomfortable with the idea! In any case, by the time God executes punishment upon the reprobates, they have already fallen into sin, so that God does not in fact punish anyone who is sinless and innocent, that is, except when he caused the suffering of Christ. Even then, the punishment inflicted was just in God's mind since Christ was bearing the guilt of the chosen ones (Isaiah 53:10). Thus the principle has been consistently applied.
So the objection against supralapsarianism really amounts to a reluctance to admit that God is God, and not a man or a mere creature. This is a major culprit behind all false theological systems, whether we are thinking of Liberalism, Arminianism, or inconsistent Calvinism. But there is in fact no biblical or rational objection against supralapsarianism, or consistent Calvinism in general.
Once we abandon our false and man-centered assumptions, the offense of absolute divine sovereignty vanishes. Whether we will to let go of them is another question. The work of the Spirit in sanctification is needed for us to relinquish all sense of human autonomy and man-centered thinking, including the relative and illusory type of "freedom" that appears in inconsistent Calvinism.
Commentary on First Peter (29)
Some people are very perverted in their thinking. They are theological deviants, and they can twist any beautiful doctrine into something false and self-serving. I am referring to those who assert that God was willing to redeem us by "the precious blood of Christ" because he considered us valuable. That is, he was willing to pay such a high cost to redeem us because we were worth the price.
The teaching is supposed to attract sinners to accept the gospel, to boost the people's self-esteem, and to encourage them to make something of their lives. One preacher even said that the atonement proves that God considered us of greater worth than Christ himself, for otherwise he would have never allowed his Son to die for us sinners. At this point the teaching has reached the stage of blasphemy.
This view makes the atonement a purely business transaction, or an economic decision. However, even from this perspective, the atonement does not prove our worth, not to say that it proves we are of greater worth to God than Christ himself. This is because, although Christ had to suffer, afterward he was not lost or destroyed, but he was resurrected and glorified. The sacrifice was not in a permanent loss of one for the gain of another, but in that Christ had to endure the humiliation and suffering involved in his incarnation, persecution, and crucifixion. So it was not as if God gave up Christ for the elect in the sense of a permanent financial exchange, and there is no basis to think that the chosen ones were of equal or greater value to Christ himself.
Instead, the New Testament presents sinners as unworthy and undeserving, so that there is nothing in them that demanded God's attention or moved him to send Christ to die for them. He did not redeem the elect because he thought that it would be a profitable investment in the economic sense. The atonement proves what Scripture says that it proves – nothing more and nothing less. And from the scriptural perspective, the atonement is a demonstration of the extent of our sinfulness, of God's justice and wrath, and the greatness of God's love and grace toward his chosen ones. In fact, it is because sinners are worthless in themselves that the atonement is rightly said to be an act of divine grace.
We can take a step back and look at this relative to God's eternal purpose, instead of looking at this relative to sin. From this ultimate perspective, God's decrees for Christ to redeem the chosen ones and for man to fall into sin themselves serve the greater purpose of God's glory. In this biblical and supralapsarian scheme, God so valued his glory that he decreed the fall of all mankind, so that there would be a company of elect sinners for Christ to redeem.
Therefore, the atonement demonstrates God's commitment to glorify himself. To look at this from the other direction, if the atonement is all about the worth of the elect, then God could have just decreed for Adam to remain in righteousness, rendering the atonement unnecessary in the first place. God did not decree this because his plan has never been centered on man, contrary to some false theological systems, but on exalting his own glory through Christ.
Creation, election, reprobation, and redemption all work toward this ultimate purpose. And this is where all sound theology begins and ends – not man's worth, but God's glory. It is true that believers have been redeemed at a high price, even the precious blood of Christ, but this should elicit deep gratitude and holy confidence, and not self-esteem or some idea of inherent worth in us such that God could not help but sacrifice Christ to redeem us.
Commentary on First Peter (28)
Continuing in this direction, holy living involves a departure from our former lusts, the evil desires that controlled us while we lived in ignorance as non-Christians. Peter writes, "As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires." The command here is for believers to stop patterning their life and character according to the lusts that they had before they were converted to Christ. As Paul says in Romans 12:2, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world."
Again, we notice that non-Christians do not shape their lives according to wisdom and charity, but according to beastly lusts, strong sinful urges that drive them to rebellion and destruction. As for us, we are no longer like animals and spiritual rebels. Now we are "obedient children," or "children of obedience." This Semitic idiom refers to those who take after the character of someone or something. So non-Christians are "children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) and "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), while Christians are "children of light" (Ephesians 5:8; Luke 16:8; John 12:36), and here in Peter, the "children of obedience."
And as children of obedience, we no longer have to conform to the evil desires we had while we were still non-Christians. Now we can throw off the mold to think differently and behave differently. Now we can live in obedience to the truth, and not be slaves to sinful urges and desires. Yes, we will then become an eyesore and an offense to the unbelievers, but we do not try to be different for the sake of being different. If we will only be obedient to the truth, we will already be different enough.
Peter says that his readers had an "empty way of life" before their conversion. Non-Christians portray themselves as rational and intelligent people, but we have seen that this is a lie. They also portray their lifestyles as exciting and meaningful, but this is a lie as well. Their lives are empty, futile, useless, and worthless. And this is the sort of people that they are. Unbelievers are not to be envied.
Many Christians have been unbelievers for years before they were converted, and they have lived this futile life that Peter is talking about. But because of remaining sin in them, and because of hardship and persecution, sometimes they forget how terrible things were before their conversion. Consider the Israelites who complained against Moses and Aaron, saying, "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death" (Exodus 16:3). But they were slaves in Egypt! They were not living in comfort and luxury.
Likewise, when facing difficulties incurred by their faith, some Christians forget about the wretched condition of the past, and they become nostalgic, so that they revel in a romanticized version of what life was like before their conversion. But they need to remember that they were slaves to sin. They were ignorant and irrational people – stupid people. They were driven not by reason but by animalistic lusts and urges. Their lives were empty and futile. They were useless and worthless people.
As Christians, we have been redeemed from this kind of life. Now, silver and gold can buy one's freedom from slavery under a human master, but natural commodities like these can never redeem a person who is enslaved by ignorance and depravity. Non-Christians have silver and gold, and these can often buy them out of trouble with men and into a life of comfort and luxury. But these can never buy them out of trouble with God and into life in heaven.
God himself had to pay the price for the redemption of our souls, for otherwise no one could be saved. So he sent his own Son to die on the cross for the elect, those whom he has chosen before the creation of the world. Now we have new life in Christ, and we no longer need to be pathetic and worthless people like the unbelievers, and like we were before our conversion.
Commentary on First Peter (27)
Our calling as Christians is to imitate this trait of holiness. God has made us different, and now he commands us to live out this difference. Among other things, this includes a moral separation from those who are profane. Depending on the situation, sometimes this entails a physical separation also, but at this point many people become confused.
There is a school of "holiness" teaching that stresses abstinence from "worldly" pursuits such as secular literature, music, and various forms of entertainment and recreation such as television, movies, sports, and so on. It also places a tight watch over associations with unbelievers. In opposition to this, some emphasize that all of creation is "good," and that the Christian is to fully participate in it. In addition, although we are not to be "of" the world, we must still be "in" it, and therefore we should frequently befriend sinners and socialize with them. They cite the example of Jesus, who often associated with sinners, talking and feasting with them.
However, the way that they use Jesus' example ends up condemning John the Baptist. Scripture indicates that these two had different approaches to ministry, and both were legitimate. It was the people's negative reactions to both approaches that were condemned: "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners'" (Luke 7:32-34).
John the Baptist, for sure, was different: "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey" (Matthew 3:4). Was this part of his "holiness"? Yes. Nowadays he would be criticized by Christians who insist that we must fully participate in the culture of the day. But there is nothing inherently wrong with his style and approach. So what if he went off into the desert, and dressed and lived like a he did? The people went out to hear him.
And here is the difference: I would say nothing to criticize a Christian who wishes to live like a hermit or somewhat like an ascetic if he does not rest in this for his justification before God, if he does not think that there is an inherent holiness in such a lifestyle, and especially if hundreds of people would seek him out to hear the gospel. Who can say that he is not "in" the world when he has a bigger audience than most Christians who claim to "engage" culture? If we have a doctrine that by itself would condemn some of the prophets, and someone like John the Baptist, then this doctrine must be false, since Scripture does not condemn them.
So John the Baptist was holy, and in his case that was how he lived. But it is true that Jesus did not have to outwardly conform to this lifestyle to be holy. He feasted with the tax collectors and spoke with prostitutes. This is what many Christians wish to emphasize today. Jesus went to parties, and therefore so should we. Everything that God made is good, so we should dance, drink, draw, and make music! But for some reason, we should still avoid poisonous mushrooms.
Anyway, while Jesus was with them, the tax collectors were not extorting money from the people, and the prostitutes were not luring clients! They were either sinners who were willing to listen, or who had already repented. Jesus' holiness stopped the sins of others. He had no intimate friendship with anyone who was not interested in faith and repentance. This is the proper doctrine of association with sinners. He did not join them – they joined him.
This is the difference between real holiness and the two false versions under consideration. The first stresses a merely external separation from the world, as if that is inherently holy. The second uses Jesus' external association with sinners as an excuse for worldliness. Thus both of them judge only by appearances and fail to grasp the true nature of holiness.
Holiness is separation. God has called us to be holy. He has made us different, and he commands us to live the difference. A person who walks in holiness may visit the marketplace and associate with sinners, but when he engages the world, he also wields great spiritual power and moral influence. He is not interested in justifying his lusts for worldly learning, recreation, and fellowship. He exhibits an otherworldliness such that, although he is in the world, he is obviously not of it.
Commentary on First Peter (26)
Contrary to their own assertion, unbelievers are never guided by truth or reason, but in their ignorance, they are driven by "evil desires." The word means a "longing" or "craving," either in the positive or the negative sense. For example, Jesus said to his disciples, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Luke 22:15). The literal wording there is, "with desire, I have desired" (KJV). And Paul writes, "I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far" (Philippians 1:23). Finally, 1 Thessalonians 2:17 says, "But, brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you."
Peter always uses the word in a negative sense (2:11; 4:2-3; 2 Peter 1:4; 2:10, 18; 3:3). In these cases, the KJV translates it as "lusts," and the NIV translates it as "evil desires," "sinful desires," "lustful desires," and so on, depending on the context. Later in 4:2, Peter will make the contrast between living for "evil human desires" and for "the will of God." In our verse (1:14), Peter is obviously referring to the longings of the unregenerate, and so it is rightly rendered "evil desires."
Not only are the non-Christians intellectually impaired, as those born with mental retardation, but they are also morally corrupt. Moreover, they do not sin in a detached manner or with an indifferent attitude. Rather, they are driven by desires. They are not in control of themselves, but their sinful urges overpower them to direct their actions and decisions.
But this is not an entirely accurate way to describe it, because these desires are so much a part of them that they do not resist them. They want to follow where they take them. They are these evil desires. As Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). They are so much slaves to sin that they never want to be free from it.
Thus their condition is one of ignorance coupled with lust, irrationality reinforced by depravity. From either the intellectual or the moral perspective, they are certainly not in a position to boast or to criticize the believers. Non-Christians would have us believe that they are driven by knowledge, decency, and progress, but they are liars. No, they are guided by ignorance and driven by evil desires.
Christians, including Peter's readers, were once just like these people. But God has chosen them, changed them, and called them to be holy. The basic reason why Christians must be holy is because God, the one who has called them, is holy. Peter appeals to the Old Testament verse, "Be holy, because I am holy" (see Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2). Christians have been called out of their former evil desires and ignorance to imitate the holiness of God.
The word for "holy" is hagios, whose root meaning is "different." God's holiness refers to more than his moral superiority, but it first stresses his transcendence. As 1 Samuel 2:2 says, "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God." And Isaiah 40:25 says, "'To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?' says the Holy One." The one who is supremely "holy" stands on his own. No one can compare to him, and no one is his equal. So the concept refers to a difference and a separation. God is distinct, and aloof in the most noble sense.
Commentary on First Peter (25)
Peter says that his readers had "lived in ignorance" before they became Christians. "Ignorance" is just one of the words used in the New Testament to signify the intellectual incompetence of non-Christians, both Jews and Gentiles. Unbelief does not arise from superior rationality and knowledge, but it is invariably associated with irrationality and ignorance. Scripture regards all non-Christians as defective in their minds.
A person who is born with mental retardation cannot function like other people when it comes to learning and reasoning, and one who has suffered severe brain damage would have a difficult time performing the tasks that others regard as ordinary. Likewise, sin has inflicted such a blow to the mind that non-Christians are born with a severe intellectual impediment that only God can cure. This is not obvious to the non-Christians themselves, just as one mentally retarded person might not recognize the condition in himself or in another person. But their condition is clear to God, and it ought to be obvious to Christians as well.
Some Christian scholars try to relegate the mental defect that Scripture attributes to unbelievers to a mere "moral" ignorance, or foolishness in a moral sense. But I have never really come across a coherent biblical explanation of what it means for a person to be morally stupid and not intellectually stupid. In any case, Scripture is careful to distinguish between the moral and the intellectual issues in the unbelievers. It distinctively refers to them both, often as two related but distinguishable problems with the non-Christians.
It is true that when Scripture speaks this way about the unbelievers, it is not referring to only a lack of information on their part, but also the fact that they lack a relational knowledge of God. But the way that Christians scholars point this out is often a little suspicious. It is as if they want to preserve the perception that unbelievers can be very intelligent in all things except when it comes to spiritual matters. However, since God is the creator and ruler of all things, and all things are intelligible and truly understood only when considered in relation to him, this means that unbelievers are necessarily incompetent in all intellectual matters and on all subjects.
God is not just the crown of knowledge, but he is also the foundation. One cannot have a true view of physics, biology, psychology, or any other subject, unless he first affirms the one true God and his revelation. And contrary to what some Christians teach, once we affirm God and Scripture, we still cannot reason apart from them and arrive at knowledge. We cannot just pretend to embrace the Bible as the foundation of all our thinking, but then proceed to reason without it, and declare by force and without reason that sensations are reliable, that induction is valid, that the scientific method is logical and yields knowledge, and so on. Just as the unbeliever cannot arrive at truth apart from God, neither can a believer arrive at truth if he departs from God in his thinking.
So to point out that Scripture does not refer to only an ignorance of information but also a lack of relational knowledge does not paint a better picture of the unbelievers in any way; rather, it paints a much worse picture of them. It does not make them appear more competent but much less competent. A Christian might lack information, but that is easy to fix – he can simply be told the truth. But a non-Christian cannot change just because you tell him the right information. He is too foolish to rightly process truth or to reason validly from correct premises.
You can tell a mentally retarded person the right information, but he cannot grasp it. He might just stare at you and drool. In some cases, for the person to be able to repeat something that is said to him or to follow some simple instructions would be considered an astounding breakthrough. This is similar to the non-Christian's condition – not just when it comes to spiritual things, but when it comes to all intellectual matters. The difference is that his handicap is, to some people, not as obvious as staring and drooling.
What can be done? Just as it is humanly impossible to help someone with severe mental retardation to make beyond the most superficial improvements, mere men cannot help the non-Christian – God must perform a miracle. Thus Scripture refers to the new birth, and to an enlightening of the mind when the sinner is converted and given faith in Jesus Christ.
This is one of the plainest teachings in the Bible, that non-Christians are both sinful and stupid, not just sinful. They are not intelligent, and none of them remain in unbelief because they are too smart for the Christian faith. This is important on several important levels. It is pivotal to a proper understanding of the depravity of man and the grace of God, as well as to the correct approach to apologetics and evangelism. However, it is also one of the hardest teachings for Christians to accept, since it appears that many of them have a perverted admiration for non-Christian scholarship. Because this arises from a denial of Scripture and a distortion of reality, it is both ungodly and unhealthy.
Commentary on First Peter (24)
1 Peter 1:14-2:3
As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."
Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
We have spent much time on the beginning verses (1:1-13) of First Peter because they provide the theological foundation for us to understand and appreciate the rest of the letter. As mentioned, Peter would soon begin to tell his readers how they should think and behave within specific situations and relationships. However, this does not begin until 2:13. The first major portion of the letter, therefore, does not end with 1:13, but continues all the way to 2:12.
Between 1:14-2:12, we find two sections that in some ways are similar to 1:3-13. One similarity is that in all three sections (1:3-13, 1:14-2:3, 2:4-12), Peter appeals to a major theological theme and then draws the appropriate conclusion from it. Thus Peter tells his readers, in effect, God has chosen you and saved you, and you are privileged to live in this time of fulfillment (1:3-12) – therefore, set your mind on grace (1:13). Then, second, you have become children of God, and now you call him your Father (1:14-25) – therefore, feed on spiritual milk and grow up in your salvation (2:1-3). Finally, you have been made priests of God through Christ, and as living stones, you are being built into a spiritual house (2:4-10) – therefore, abstain from sinful desires and live good lives among the pagans (2:11-12).
These themes and conclusions are in turn the basis for the instructions and exhortations that appear in the second major portion of the letter, which begins from 2:13. These instructions and exhortations would lack context and the believers would lack the strength to follow them if not for the understanding that they follow from the nature of their salvation.
That said, there are at least two reasons why we treat 1:3-13 (or 1:1-13) as the ultimate or primary foundation, even though the subsequent two sections (1:14-2:3 and 2:4-12) do not begin the so-called "practical" portion of this letter.
First, although the second and the third sections introduce their own theological materials, they represent specific aspects of the great salvation that has already been discussed in the first. Second, although the second and the third sections exhibit some similarities in content and structure, rather than waiting until 2:13, Peter starts to mix his indicatives and imperatives beginning from 1:14. Unlike the first section, which stresses what is true about the believers, these two sections contain both declarations about the believers and instructions for the believers.
With the above in mind, let us consider 1:14-2:3 in this chapter of the commentary, and then 2:4-12 in the next.
"The Da Vinci Code" in PDF
Our short article on The Da Vinci Code is now available as a PDF file at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/davinci.pdf
Under our copyright policy, you are permitted to print, copy, and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for any ministry purpose, such as for your church, study group, or personal outreach.
Recommended:
Presuppositional Confrontations
The Da Vinci Code
The following has been adapted from an "internal" message originally sent to our private mailing list.
The Da Vinci Code is a recent popular novel. Although its author admits that it is fictional, he also claims that the plot is based on historical facts. These "facts" in turn refer to a conspiracy in which the Church has hidden information concerning Jesus Christ that if uncovered would prove damaging to what has come to be orthodox Christian beliefs. As the author admits, these alleged "facts" are in fact nothing new, nor is this the first time that they have been written about. They are in reality based on a number of documents, theories, and legends that scholars and informed believers have been familiar with since…well, forever. And they have also been refuted since forever.
However, now that these theories have been interwoven into a thriller that many consider to be entertaining, they are suddenly brought to the attention of the general public. And of course, most readers have no way of discerning between fact from fiction. A story can often disarm people's critical faculty, and transmit the theories and beliefs that stand behind it into people's thinking, as if by osmosis. Whether a story is true or false, the average person is easily influenced by story because most people are irrational and undiscerning. So whether it is transmitting truth or falsehood, a theory gains influence when it is placed in the form of a narrative. This does not mean that the method of storytelling is in itself deceptive or otherwise problematic, but I am saying that a theory can gain access to an irrational person's mind more easily when it is transmitted as part of a story than if it is presented in nonfiction form.
I appreciate the work that a number of people have done in formulating specific answers to Da Vinci, as long as the contents of their materials are accurate and effective. These answers, of course, are not based on new research and reflection, but on what scholars and informed believers have known and affirmed all along, only that the information is now applied to the novel.
Nevertheless, there are two major problems that I find with most of the Christain responses to Da Vinci.
One problem that I have against these materials is not the answers that they give, for on the whole they would be correct, but the philosophy behind their arguments. For example, they might respond to a historical claim in Da Vinci with arguments formulated from a purely empirical epistemology. Although their arguments might still be sound relative to the established (agreed upon) methods of investigation, they might reflect too much reliance on and confidence in empiricism in establishing their conclusions, in arguing for the Christian faith, or responding to attacks. Because of this faulty foundation, their entire presentation will necessarily mix in some of the uncertainties and logical problems that are inherent in this approach. To use another topic as an illustration, Christians can use scientific arguments to argue against the theory of evolution. That is, they could use the scientific method to formulate scientific arguments against scientific objections. But if in their presentation they show an epistemological reliance on science, and if science is itself uncertain, irrational, and even false (as I have argued elsewhere), then their approach would make it appear that Christianity is itself uncertain, even if Christianity appears more likely to be correct. So, this would be the first reservation that I have toward Christian answers to Da Vinci.
Another problem that I find in the Christian responses to Da Vinci is the suggestion that there is no harm for a person to read the book if he would remember that it is just a novel. A number of writers admit that they find the book rather enjoyable, only that they have a problem with the claim that the plot is based on historical facts. However, the book is not only inaccurate about history, but what it is inaccurate about — what it speaks against — has to do with the truth of Scripture, the identity and work of Jesus Christ, and even the very nature of God. Therefore, the work is not just "inaccurate" — it is blasphemous. Since this is the case, it is sinful for a Christian to say to others, "As long as you know the facts, go ahead and read it! It's rather entertaining, really. Just remember that it is a novel and don't take it too seriously." Even if there are legitimate reasons to read it, this is certainly not one of them. Instead, I would insist that a Christian sins greatly if he reads the novel for this reason, and a Christian leader sins still more severely if he suggests that it would be fine to read it for this reason.
We should never tell people that it is fine to read or watch blasphemy just because it is entertaining blasphemy, just because it does not pose a real threat to our faith, or just as long as we do not take it seriously. I would insist that it is a great sin against the Lord to read or watch, or tell people to read or watch, for this reason. One reason that many people do not think this way is because they have a man-centered morality. We would not allow people to watch pornography just so that they could be entertained or informed, but from a God-centered perspective, blasphemy is much worse than pornography. How dare we be entertained by it? How dare we? What kind of monster would I be if I were to be entertained by a novel that insults my wife or a movie that mocks my parents? But it is fine to enjoy a novel or a movie that blasphemes our Lord, just as long as we do not take it seriously? At least from this standpoint, those who think this way are just as guilty as the author of Da Vinci. You better have a much better reason for reading the book or watching the movie than mere curiosity, or a lust for entertainment or controversy.
Now that Da Vinci is being made into a movie, it is that much more likely that some of you will encounter people who mention either the book or the movie to you. Do not be distracted by the current intensity of the hype. Your main response should still be to discuss foundational issues such as epistemology, metaphysics, to arrange a comprehensive clash between the believing and unbelieving worldviews, and so on. To do these things, you should review my Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Apologetics in Conversation. Any time that you spend on the details in Da Vinci should eventually lead the discussion back to the foundational worldview issues and the contents of the gospel.
This is not very different from when someone challenges you with the theory of evolution. Yes, you can use scientific arguments to defeat him on this issue, but then what? Even after proving that evolution is false with scientific arguments, you still have not proven that other arguments against Christianity are false, or that Christianity is right. So eventually you must still investigate the first principles of the opposing systems of philosophy. So although it is never necessary, it might be useful to know several scientific arguments against evolution, if for no other reason than to use them as ad hominem arguments to show that you are not afraid to deal with science, or to show that your opponent is wrong even if you employ his irrational methods.
In the same way, it might also be useful for you to have access to information against the historical claims in Da Vinci. Therefore, at the end of this article, I am listing several online resources on the subject. There are many others, but the ones that I have listed here are enough to answer the challenges against Christianity that people might have from reading the book or watching the movie. There are also a number of printed books written to answer Da Vinci, but again, these web sites should be enough, and they are especially convenient when dealing with other people, since you can send them the links in an email.
In any case, remember that people refuse to believe in Christianity never because they have some solid argument or evidence against it, but because, as the Bible says, their deeds are evil, so that they love the darkness and hate the light. The false information in Da Vinci just gives them the excuse to claim that they are making a rational rejection of Christianity, although there is nothing rational about it. So unless the Holy Spirit works in their hearts to produce repentance and faith, even if the claims in Da Vinci are shown to be completely inaccurate, they would still refuse to believe, but they would just find another excuse to hide behind.
Therefore, letting the unbeliever force you to devote too much time to any one type of objections — whether it is Da Vinci, or evolution, etc. — is to fall into a trap. He can always make up something to say, no matter how ridiculous, just so you must take the time to refute it. You see, whether he is consciously doing it or not, he is just trying to keep on making objections so that he does not have to be confronted with the true condition of his soul and the truth about Jesus Christ. In fact, at the right time in a conversation, you should point this out, and say, "I have pointed you to the answers against the claims made in Da Vinci. Now you must either refute these answers, or acknowledge that Da Vinci does not really pose a problem for the Christian faith. Or are you still hiding behind Da Vinci, not because it really gives you any rational objection against Christianity, but because you are trying to find an excuse to reject the truth?"
The unbeliever wants to stop you from talking about him — that is, about the unbeliever himself. He will say anything. He will throw anything in your face just so he can delay a real confrontation with God for another moment. If it is not something from Da Vinci, it will be something else. So, yes, answer his objections, but always bring the conversation back to him — the wretched condition of his soul, his sins against God, and his only hope for salvation in Jesus Christ. Make him defend his beliefs. Make him justify his behavior and lifestyle.
It is true that Da Vinci mentions issues that are good for believers to know about, only that the novel makes false claims about these issues. For example, it makes a claim about the relationship between Christianity and Constantine, emperor of Rome. But I think that the best setting to first learn about this and other topics is a general course in church history — a positive and organized presentation on the subject — and not in the context of a refutation of a piece of popular fiction that makes false claims about church history. And of course, a general knowledge of church history would automatically refute what is claimed in the novel, since it would include information on what really happened at the time of Constantine, and so on.
All-Purpose Apologetics
These works expound on a biblical approach to defending the faith that is always applicable. It is able to destroy all objections against the faith even when you do not have the time to give specific replies to them. And as mentioned, even if you give specific answers against Da Vinci during the course of a conversation with the unbeliever, you should still lead him back to the foundational worldview issues discussed in these works.
Presuppositional Confrontations
Answers to The Da Vinci Code
These are online resources with specific answers against the false claims made in Da Vinci.
thetruthaboutdavinci.com/articles/
leaderu.com/focus/Davinci_movie.html
envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-Part1.htm
envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm
ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/pressroom/mieselinterview.asp
Commentary on First Peter (23)
Verse 13 begins with a "therefore" and indicates that here is Peter's conclusion from all that preceded – not only verses 10-12, but reaching back all the way to verse 3. God has chosen us for salvation in eternity, and in his great mercy, he has given us a new birth, a living hope, and an indestructible inheritance. Even now he is guarding our salvation through our faith, which is of greater worth than gold. We rejoice in this salvation – the prophets longed to see its fulfillment, and even the angels are stirred to holy curiosity and desire to learn about it.
"Therefore" – because of God's great mercy, because of the inexpressible and glorious joy that this produces in you, and because of the greatness of this salvation and the privilege of living in this time of fulfillment – Peter says, "prepare your minds…be self-controlled…set your hope fully on the grace…."
What is translated "prepare your minds for action" here literally says "gird up the loins of your mind" (KJV). The oriental expression refers to the act of gathering one's long and flowing robe, and tying it around his waist with a girdle, so that he may proceed unimpeded with whatever strenuous activity that he may need to perform (1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 4:29).
The NIV correctly conveys the meaning, for the expression indeed means to "prepare…for action." What it does not communicate is that this preparation is done by gathering up our loose garments so as to remove out of the way anything that would hinder our movements or that would cause us to stumble. However, Peter is not referring to physical activity, but he is saying that in light of the greatness of our salvation, we should prepare our minds in such a manner.
So when Peter continues and tells his readers to "be sober" (KJV), he is not just warning them against becoming drunk with wine, but he is mainly referring to mental intoxication. The NIV translates, "be self-controlled" and rightly conveys the intended meaning of mental alertness, sobriety, and discipline.
Remember that Peter is writing to encourage those who are facing or would be facing hardship and persecution, especially due to the fact that they were Christians. Later in the letter, he will give specific guidelines regarding the attitudes and the practices that are appropriate for the believers to assume when they come under these trials. Although he will continue to enrich the theological foundation that he has constructed, these beginning verses provide the background for all that would follow.
Here, then, is the conclusion that Peter draws from verses 3-12. Because of the greatness of our salvation, we are to prepare our minds for action by tightening our grip on our thinking, and by putting out of the way all the false beliefs, evil desires, and other distractions that would impede our progress. We must prepare our minds in such a manner so that we may remain spiritually agile, quick to grasp and follow the will of the Lord.
Rather than being mentally intoxicated by what the world offers, we are to remain clear in our minds and to exercise self-control over our thinking. Instead of looking toward the world for acceptance, for strength, or for comfort, we must direct our minds to set our hope on the present and future grace of God. This grace already belongs to us, and even now we are experiencing some of its benefits, but we look forward to its consummation when Jesus Christ is revealed.
Whether by its temptations or by its persecutions, whether by teaching us its attitudes or by presenting us with its rewards, the world tries to intoxicate our minds, by drawing all of our thinking into it, so that we would forget our homeland of heaven. If we do not stay sober and alert, ready to do right and to avoid error, the world would cause us to stumble with all its fanfare about career, culture, reputation, status, associations, entertainment, self-satisfaction, and so on.
But if we would prepare our minds and control our thinking, and then set our hope on the grace of God, then we will retain an otherworldliness that is proper to a citizen of heaven, and the world will neither be able to mold us nor to crush us. It is with this mindset, founded on an understanding on God's grace in our salvation, that we are prepared to follow Peter's upcoming instructions on how to think and behave when we undergo hardship and persecution.