Commentary on First Peter (50)
To recapitulate, at the beginning of this chapter, we considered what our passage says about Christ and what it says about the unbelievers. Then, we spent a great deal of time on what it says about the Christians. They are living stones that are being built into a spiritual house. They are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation – a people that is God's special treasure, and whom he has called out of darkness into his wonderful light.
The passage mentions two things that Christians have been redeemed by God to do. First, they are to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (v. 5). We have already discussed this. Second, believers are to "declare the praises of him who called" them (v. 9). The word translated "praises" is aretas. The English translations attempt to capture different aspects of what the word means, and they have done so in two main ways. The first takes the word as referring to the "excellent qualities" of God (GWT), and thus the NASB has "excellencies" here. The second observes contemporary pagan usage of the word as well as the context of Isaiah 43:21, from which Peter obtains the phrase, and so concludes that the word refers to God's actions and miracles. Thus the RSV offers the translation, "wonderful deeds," and the REB reads, "glorious deeds."
The God of Isaiah 43:21 is the one who brought the Israelites out of Egypt with signs and wonders, and he is the one who would bring them out of Babylon, where they were held captive. In our passage, he is the one who called believers out of darkness into his wonderful light. Therefore, the "praises" that we are to declare would no doubt include the mighty acts that God performed in redeeming us from death, sin, and hell. It would include his eternal decree to redeem his chosen ones, and the fulfillment of this decree in Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.
The phrase also calls attention to the fact that, although we are the one needing and receiving salvation, redemption is ultimately not about us, but about God. Back in Isaiah 43, God says that he would blot out transgressions "for my own sake" (v. 25). This idea is consistently taught throughout the Bible (Psalm 25:11, 79:9; Ezekiel 20:9, 36:22; Ephesians 1:6).
In other words, our theology of salvation must be consistently God-centered and not man-centered. It is not enough to acknowledge that the reason for our election rests within God's sovereign will alone, and not in our own inherent worth and merit. We must also affirm that, although God does love us and intend to benefit us through redemption, the ultimate end or purpose for which God saves us is for himself and not for us.
Commentary on First Peter (49)
Peter calls the Christians "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (v. 9). The Greek word translated "people" here is genos, which means "race" (NASB). We have already discussed the priesthood of believers (see also Revelation 1:6 and 5:10). So he asserts that God's people are not Abraham's physical descendants, but Christians are the chosen race. God's priests are not the sons of Aaron, but Christians are the royal priesthood. And God's nation is not the earthly Israel, defined according to geography, but the church is his holy nation (Exodus 19:6).
Then, Christians are "a people belonging to God" (v. 9). Similar expressions are found in Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, Isaiah 43:21, and Malachi 3:17. It seems that Peter mainly has in mind the verse from Isaiah, since the next phrase "that you may declare the praises of him" parallels the Old Testament prophet, who says, "the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise." The sense here is that God has chosen the Christians to be a special treasure for himself. Hillyer notes, "The corresponding Hebrew term is twice used of the personal treasure of a king, as distinct from the national revenues that he controlled (1 Chron. 29:3; Eccl. 2:8)."
Peter is obviously applying the promises and blessings that God gave Israel to Christians, or to the church. Of course, God never changed his mind or altered his program, but as we noted earlier, it has always been true that a person is saved, not by becoming a Jew outwardly, but by becoming a Jew inwardly – he has to become a Christian (Romans 2:28-29, 9:7-8). This has been the case even since the beginning – every natural Jew who refuses to become a Christian is no Jew at all, and will suffer eternal damnation just as readily as any non-Christian Gentile (Galatians 3:7, 29; Romans 4:11-12). Christians are a chosen race of people, with exclusive blessings and privileges, not according to race, tradition, or geography, but according to faith. Verse 10 is an application of verses like Hosea 1:9 and 2:23, and reinforces the same idea.
It is not exactly correct to say that the Jews were the chosen people in the past, but now Christians are the chosen people. Rather, once we have defined our terms, it is more correct and precise to say that the chosen people – not the outward covenant community, but those chosen for salvation – have always consisted of Christians, and only Christians. The difference is that most Christians used to come from the Jews in the past, but now God makes Christians out of people from all races and all nations. In contrast, non-Christians have never been God's people, whether in the past or present, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, and even when some of them have infiltrated the covenant community.
Christians have been called "out of darkness into his wonderful light" (v. 9). Again, this reflects Peter's unflattering view toward the unbeliever's condition as well as the magnitude of the grace of redemption. The non-Christian dwells in darkness, both intellectually and morally. But God has brought the Christian out of darkness and into the light of knowledge and holiness. This is a recurring metaphor in the New Testament (Acts 26:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6, 6:14; Ephesians 5:8; Colossians 1:12-13; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-5).
Commentary on First Peter (48)
Or, how about a Chinese Christian who departs from his family's Buddhist heritage, and who then renounces all idolatrous practices, including ancestor worship and other forbidden religious ceremonies? It depends on how much emphasis the family places on their traditions. In some cases, great shame may be heaped upon the believer. The family members might give him the "cold shoulder," or even outright hostile treatment. It is not inconceivable for the parents to remove from their will a child who has been converted to the Christian faith.
Parents might boast before friends and relatives that their children are doctors, bankers, and lawyers. They are not as proud if their children are janitors and taxi drivers, but for someone to become a pastor, why, that is just a waste of time and talent. Of course, this line of thinking also appears in Westerners in various forms and degrees, as they also think in terms of honor and shame, even if their mentality is not as saturated and influenced by these categories.
Peter accepts the honor-shame mentality, but he reverses its application. Unbelievers regard Christ with hatred and scorn, and so to them it is shameful to trust in him. But what does God think? He is the only correct standard by which all things are judged, and he has made Christ the cornerstone of all true faith and worship. Those who believe in him "will never be put to shame," but "the honor is for [them] who believe." As for "those who do not believe," it is this very stone that they have rejected that trips them up, and causes them to stumble and fall. To them is the shame and dishonor.
Therefore, the greatest honor that has come upon my family is that God has chosen me and converted me, and in addition to this, that he has separated me to serve him in the ministry. I am the greatest honor that God has ever attached to the Cheung family. Members of my family should not be ashamed of my faith as a Christian and my profession as a minister. But I cannot say the same about them, that is, those who do not believe – they are an embarrassment to me. I regard their unbelief with great disdain and shame.
Some Christians might feel strange and uncomfortable to hear me say this, perhaps for a similar reason that many translators select an inferior rendering for verse 7. And this is precisely why I must say it, because this is Peter's point, so that until a person can apply it this way to his own situation, he probably does not believe it at all. Once we renew our minds and adjust our thinking toward this direction, the benefits of this teaching to those enduring persecution from unbelievers becomes evident, and requires no elaboration.
The only thing to add is that when we speak in this manner about the honor of faith, we are not boasting in ourselves, since our faith did not arise from our own holiness or wisdom, but it came from God's sovereign grace. We believe because God has chosen us in his mercy and has caused us to believe by his power. So when we talk like this, we are boasting about what God has done through Christ. As it is written, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:31). In fact, the Christian who never boasts this way – that is, from the perspective of what God has done in him, and to extol the works of God in his life – does not really understand or appreciate his salvation.
Commentary on First Peter (47)
Returning to the "spiritual sacrifices," these are not foreign to the Old Testament. As Psalm 141:2 says, "May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice." All Christians are to offer spiritual sacrifices to God, but none of these are blood sacrifices. There is only one atoning death, and that is the death of Jesus Christ. He sacrifice is sufficient, and its efficacy is permanent. Thus there is no need to repeat it, or for us to supplement it with other blood sacrifices. But our sacrifices are "spiritual," and consists in holy thoughts, words, and actions.
These sacrifices are "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (v. 5). He is the necessary and only mediator between God and man. He is the High Priest under whom all the priests of God serve and have access to the throne of grace. In turn, this means that all the prayers and good deeds of worshipers who do not come through Christ, such as the adherents of non-Christian religions, are in fact unholy sacrifices, rejected and condemned by God. They are not priests, but they intrude into our rightful place as those consecrated for worship, and attempt to dupe or force God into accepting their sacrifices. Needless to say, these arise to God as a stench to his nostrils, and he will rain down his wrath upon them in multiplied measure. Will God have no regard for their sincerity? But if they do not come through the only right way, then they are not sincere worshipers of God, but they are sincere rebels and imposters. That is, they are not pretending to be wicked and disobedient, but they are sincerely so.
Continuing with what our passage (2:4-12) teaches about the Christians, verses 6 and 7 appeal to the ideas of honor and shame: "The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious." Although it is true that Christ is of great worth to those who believe, here the NIV errs in translating time as "precious" (also KJV, RSV, NASB, NLT, NRSV). Grammatical considerations demand the translation "honor" instead. The context also supports this, since Peter is talking about the honor of believing in Christ (v. 7; "not…shame" in v. 6) and the dishonor or shame that is the lot of "those who do not believe" (v. 7), for they shall stumble and fall (v. 8). The ESV gets it right and reads, "So the honor is for you who believe." The God's Word translation is not as precise but manages to capture the meaning: "This honor belongs to those who believe." See also the HCSB and The New Jerusalem Bible.
Commentators suspect that many translators are afraid to attribute honor to the believers, and therefore opt for "precious" instead, attributing worth to Christ in the minds of believers. But Peter is making a point here, namely, that Christians would not be "put to shame" for believing in Christ, that there is honor in their faith. This is an encouraging insight for those who live in cultures that think in categories of honor and shame, that to believe in Christ will not lead to shame but to honor, and that it is those who disbelieve who will stumble and fall.
In some cultures, great shame is attributed to one who abandons the family religion. It would not be surprising for a Christian to receive hostile treatment from his Jewish family. As Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-36). Elsewhere he predicts that "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death" (Matthew 10:21).
Commentary on First Peter (46)
So it is possible to affirm the biblical doctrine concerning the goodness of what God has created, and at the same time affirm the sacred-secular distinction. This is sufficient to provide legitimacy for believers to "engage the culture" and to participate in secular occupations and endeavors with full confidence, without guilt and shame. A believer does not have to enter public ministry to live a holy life or to become useful for the kingdom. But the proper doctrinal foundation for this view is not the denial of the sacred-secular distinction, or the assertion that all occupations are equally holy as the ministry, which is simply not true.
I may never have to listen to an accountant in my life, but all accountants must listen to preachers. Or, the accountant could give up accounting and go fishing instead – but he better not give up prayer or the reading of Scripture. Anyone can become a janitor or a businessman, although some will be better at some things than others. But most believers are warned to keep out of the teacher's office, since it incurs a stricter judgment. In God's system, some things are just more important and even more sacred than other things. To acknowledge this does not mean that we must become Catholics or Gnostics, or that we reject the priesthood of all believers. Rather, to deny the sacred-secular distinction, to the extent that this is improper, is to denigrate that which is in fact more sacred than the secular.
The above goes against a strong tradition that is held by many and a doctrine that is beloved by the same, so it might not be well-received, and perhaps vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. With such a short treatment on the subject, this cannot be avoided. And of course, people can have divergent views on the topic even if they seem to affirm the same doctrine in principle, and so to some people it might appear that I am attacking a straw man. But if it is true that they do not affirm that which I reject here, then let them not perceive this as a straw man, since I might not be talking about them at all. But it is true that many indeed believe as I have described.
In any case, as an attempt to clarify, remember that I do not deny the principle that all creation is basically "good," in the sense that Paul means it in 1 Timothy 4:4. The problem is that many wild inferences and false generalizations have been made from this, and then an entire Christian approach to society and culture has been constructed upon it, at the expense of many other parts of Scripture.
Again, we can fully acknowledge the priesthood of all believers and the goodness of all creation, and reject the teachings of the Catholics and the Gnostics, and still maintain a sacred-secular distinction. In one book, there is a picture of a minister, and next to him in a circle is the word "Holy." Then, there is a picture of a truck driver, and the circle next to him reads, "Unholy?" No, the occupation is not unholy, and one can glorify and please God in it – but it is still properly called a secular occupation.
Now, an unbeliever can fill a secular position, but let him take the office of the pastor, or let him counsel others in the name of Christ, or let him handle the word of God, whether in private or in public, then it is a transgression and a blasphemy, and the jealousy of the Lord burns hot against him. There is a difference. A big difference.
Commentary on First Peter (45)
As priests of God, believers offer "spiritual sacrifices" to him (v. 5). This aspect of the priesthood reflects yet another privilege that they possess. They do not need a special class of priestly believers to offer sacrifices on their behalf – they can do this themselves because they are priests. Moreover, there is no need to perform elaborate rituals to cleanse themselves before they could offer these sacrifices, for they have already been purified in Christ.
Although Peter does not specify these sacrifices, the Bible mentions several examples. Romans 12:1 tells us to offer our bodies as "living sacrifices" – not to be slaughtered as a blood sacrifice, of course, but to dedicate ourselves to worship and holiness. Hebrews 13:15 mentions the "sacrifice of praise." The verse is referring to a vocal adoration of God, whether in speech or in song – it is "the fruit of lips that confess his name." The next verse indicates that doing good and sharing with others are also sacrifices that are pleasing to God (v. 16). In his letter to the Philippians, Paul refers to their financial donations as "a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God" (4:18).
So our "spiritual sacrifices" to God include a variety of things, and they are offered in the forms of thoughts, words, and actions. A common but erroneous expression of the doctrine teaches that, because we are priests of God, now all our activities are spiritual sacrifices. This must be false because we can still commit sin as priests, and when we do, we are not offering acceptable spiritual sacrifices to God.
Instead, the proper expression of the doctrine is to say that, because we have been chosen and made priests of the Most High, now all our activities ought to be spiritual sacrifices, holy, pure, and pleasing to God. This means that even if we refuse to make a distinction between the sacred and the secular, for perhaps this distinction is illegitimate in some contexts, we must surely make a distinction between the sacred and the profane. And from things that are profane, Scripture instructs us to abstain (2:11; Jude 23). This fits perfectly with the idea that we are priests of God, chosen and separated to serve him alone, with clean hands and pure hearts. The fact that you have become priests of God does not mean that everything you do is now holy, but it means that you have been consecrated to do only those things that are holy and acceptable.
As for the sacred-secular distinction, those who refuse to acknowledge it is trying to honor the biblical teaching concerning the basic goodness of all creation. Sometimes there is the ulterior motive to seek biblical justification to pursue their personal interests. But some activities and some occupations are indeed more sacred than those that are usually considered secular. This does not mean that what is secular is inherently evil.
In fact, if a believer is called to a "secular" occupation, then he is regarded as a faithful servant if he would pursue it with diligence and a good conscience, with the intention to please and glorify God through it. There is nothing wrong in accounting, but the ministry is indeed in a different category altogether. There is nothing evil in washing dishes or cleaning toilets, and any believer can do these things to the glory of God and be accepted by him. Yet, the believer steps upon holy ground when he enters into prayer.
Commentary on First Peter (44)
Although ministers possess additional grace and power from God to perform their public function, it would be a grave error for believers to underestimate their position as priests of God. They have been seated in heavenly places with Christ, and now the very spirit of the prophets is upon them! They have free access to approach the Most High at any time and at any place. They may pray, sing, weep, and rejoice before the heavenly throne.
As priests, they can intercede and plead the cause of others, and they can expect God to hear and respond. They have the right and the grace to proclaim the words of God to any person, to lead him to faith in Christ, or to oppose the children of disobedience. They have the authority to counsel and admonish anyone about his life, to inform him about God's righteous demands, and to speak words of comfort to the weary in the name of Christ.
Under the right settings and following the proper procedures, and without a spirit of rebellion, they even have the right as fellow priests of God to rebuke their ministers for straying from biblical doctrines and practices. Although church protocols must be followed, no "man of God" is too high and mighty to receive counsel and correction from his fellow Christians, even if the counsel is coming from an illiterate old widow, or if the correction is coming from a small child.
Then, even if we discard all of the above for the moment, the very right to utter the divine name overwhelms me with a sense of honor and gratitude. The unbelievers are able to say the name, but each time they do, the wrath of God is multiplied toward them – for even when they do not utter it in blasphemy, they never say it with love and reverence. And "if anyone does not love the Lord – a curse be on him" (1 Corinthians 16:22). Each time a non-Christian speaks the word "God" or even thinks the name "Jesus," he ought to be pierced through by a thousand swords.
Now, it is not for us to execute judgment upon the unbelievers – our place is to instruct, implore, and rebuke. But very soon God will hold them accountable for every idle word that they have spoken, including all those instances when they have used his name without sincere faith and love toward him, or even in contempt. At any rate, I marvel that Christians can boil over with indignation when others mention their wives and children with just a hint of disrespect, but they seem utterly unmoved and detached when the non-Christians blaspheme the name of God. Then they distort Scripture and call this lack of zeal "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15) – it is supposed to be a virtue.
On the other hand, God's priests call on his name and converse among themselves about him with unfeigned gratitude and adoration, from hearts overflowing with words of praise and worship. When I say, "Jesus…" or "My Father…," it is as a sweet aroma to his nostrils. Therefore, let every believer treasure the high privileges that he has in Christ, and may none dare to despise his honored position as a Christian.
Commentary on First Peter (43)
Precision must be restored to our understanding of this doctrine. We shall consider two popular misconceptions, and after that, the correct way to understand the distinction between ministers and believers.
On the one hand, there are those who use this doctrine to elevate all believers to the position of ministers, resulting in confusion and even anarchy. At the least, there is diminished respect toward the teachings of those who have been called by God to feed the flock. There are those who assume that they can wield just as much spiritual authority in the church as any who has been divinely called, and that their own interpretations of Scripture are just as accurate as any minister, even if they have no actual basis for this confidence – no calling, no training, no spiritual endowments – other than the belief that all believers are priests.
Then, on the other hand, there are those who overreact against a false view of the distinction between ministers and believers, so that they deny the distinction altogether. Catholic ministers, for example, are called "priests" in a sense that attributes to them special access to God, so that in many ways the flock must go through them in the worship of God, in the confession of sins, and so on. No doubt this is an atrocious doctrine, and even an usurpation of Christ's unique position and authority. Nevertheless, such an anti-biblical system does not imply that all distinctions between ministers and believers are illegitimate.
One way to illustrate the real distinction between ministers and believers is to consider the difference between the public officials and the private citizens of a society. The analogy is not perfect, but it is tolerable. Of course the officials are also citizens, and of course the citizens are equal to the officials as citizens. But the officials have received delegated authority to function in a public capacity in order to serve the common good and to follow whatever mandate that has been imposed upon them. When a person is functioning in his official position, he is acting on behalf of the citizens of his society. This happens, for example, when he arrests a criminal or when he negotiates a treaty with another society.
Likewise, believers are not inferior or shortchanged in any way as believers. Also, there is no need for them to go through the ministers in worship, in prayer, in confession of sins, and so on. They have access to God through Jesus Christ, and no other mediator is necessary, nor is any other available. But this is not to say that they are called and gifted to perform public ministry.
The ministers have the added responsibility, and with it the spiritual endowments, to perform the public functions that God has called them to do. Their authority is real, and it is from God. As Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Church leaders have genuine authority from God, so that believers are to "obey" them. But they also have the responsibility, and must "give an account" for their work. God has established them for the benefit of the church, and it is self-defeating for believers to deny their calling and make their task difficult.
Commentary on First Peter (42)
Believers constitute a "holy priesthood." Commentators again exclaim that it is strange that we are the stones that make up the temple and at the same time also the priests of the temple. But there is nothing strange here. Peter is making the point that God's temple is not a physical building, but it is an organic body that is spiritually built on Christ and at the same time physically fluid and widespread. That we are also the priests of God means that we have ready access to him and that our lives are dedicated to serve and worship him.
So the doctrine is called "the priesthood of all believers," and teaches that every Christian is a priest of God. But what does this mean? People have drawn various false inferences from this. For example, some have concluded from this that every occupation is holy and acceptable for believers. As Robert Morey writes, "Since all believers are priests, this means that all jobs are holy." But we can be sure that prostitution is still far from holy, even if it is done by a Christian.
If the reply is that no true Christian would engage in prostitution, then the teaching is no longer that every occupation is holy for believers, but that believers would engage in only those occupations that are holy or that are consistent with holiness. Or, if the reply is that no Christian should engage in prostitution, then the same conclusion results – there are such things as unholy occupations, and not all occupations are holy or consistent with holiness.
False inferences like the above example are often made in the context of appealing to the priesthood of all believers. It is often accompanied by the assumption that there is to be no distinction between the sacred and the secular, and then following from this, there is the denial of the distinction between the clergy and the laity.
But should we deny a distinction between the clergy and the laity? It depends on what we mean by "clergy." If, as Merriam-Webster defines the term, we mean, "a group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church," then there is certainly a sharp distinction between the clergy and the laity. You are either a minister in this sense, or you are not. Notice that we have said nothing about whether the clergy is superior or inferior in any sense, but only whether there is a real distinction – and there is indeed such a distinction.
Now, the dictionary definition refers to ordination, probably as a church ordinance. That is, the believers formally recognize a Christian as called and gifted by God to serve a special ministerial function. But in God's providence, the believers can often err, so that they may ordain some who are not called and gifted by God, and fail to recognize others who are so called and gifted. In fact, by the dictionary definition, many members of the clergy can be unregenerate altogether and still properly be defined as part of the clergy.
So the clergy refers to those whom the church has separated for the ministry. But then we must make another distinction for those whom God himself has called and gifted, whether or not the church formally recognizes them as such. The religious authorities of the time did not award John the Baptist or Jesus himself with formal credentials, but they were ordained by God and endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ordination thus has to do with church order, but real spiritual authority comes with God's sovereign call. We may admit that it is wrong to make a distinction in terms of degrees of holiness (Acts 3:12), but this can be misleading if we are not careful, as there can be a vast difference in grace and power (Romans 12:3, 15:15; 1 Corinthians 3:10, 15:10; Galatians 2:7, 9; Ephesians 3:2, 7-8). So there is a difference between the minister and the "ordinary" believer, but the distinction is not in terms of a difference in holiness, but in calling, grace, authority, and power. From the perspective of church order, the difference is in ordination. And along with the difference, along with the greater grace and power, there is a greater responsibility, and a stricter judgment (James 3:1).
Commentary on First Peter (41)
Now we turn to talk about the Christians, the believers in Jesus Christ. Peter mentions a number of things concerning them.
Verse 5 says, "You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." This verse is especially significant, because among other things, it teaches what is often called "the priesthood of all believers."
First, just as Christ is the living Stone, which God has made the cornerstone, believers in Christ are like living stones who is being built upon him. Again, there is nothing inherently daring, startling, or paradoxical about such a metaphor. Both the cornerstone (Christ) and the living stones (Christians) are said to be "chosen" by God. This is consistent with the biblical teaching that the elect are individually selected – individual stones are chosen to join the whole.
Some theologians have invented a view of "corporate" election that denies God's absolute sovereignty over individuals in order to undermine the biblical doctrine of election while at the same time maintain the appearance that they affirm it. But unless God's sovereignty and omniscience are denied, which makes a position thoroughly anti-Christian, a doctrine of corporate election that has no individuals in view is nonsense. In other words, because God is sovereign and omniscient, he never refers to a group without having in mind all the individuals within the group. Therefore, a doctrine of corporate election that is offered as an alternative to individual election cannot be biblical.
These stones are being built into a "spiritual house" – that is, the temple of God. This is no ordinary building. What is special about this temple is that it is not made of non-living objects like bricks and stones, and neither is it confined to a small geographical location. United in Christ, it is a spiritual house whose members are physically spread all around the globe – and the souls of many are already in heaven with God. The presence of God now dwells in this spiritual temple, and not a temple made with hands. For this reason, no physical temple – Jewish or otherwise – can claim to provide access to God. The Spirit of God dwells with and within his people (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16).
Commentary on First Peter (40)
This cornerstone, Peter says, does not only provide a foundation on which God would build his living temple, but it is "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall" (v. 8; see Isaiah 8:14). Thus this stone not only defines the place of every other stone that is built into this living temple, but it also defines the status of all unbelievers. And so we will turn to what Peter says about them.
He quotes from Psalm 118:22, which refers to the stone that "the builders" rejected. In the context of Jesus' ministry, the builders would mainly refer to the Jewish leaders who rejected him and refused to accept him as their Messiah, the chosen Son of David and the divine Son of God. But the application can be broader than this – since Peter is speaking of "those who do not believe" (v. 7), we can apply what he says to all non-Christians.
Peter explains, "They stumble because they disobey the message" (v. 8). Grudem remarks, "It indicates that many who reject Christ do so because of moral disobedience to God in their lives." As mentioned earlier, non-Christians refuse to come to Christ not because there is something wrong with Christ or the message of Christ, but it is because their deeds are evil, so that they hate the light and love the darkness. For one to be converted, God himself must convert the person by his omnipotence (John 6:44, 65). Likewise, non-Christians hate God's people not necessarily because there is something wrong with us (Peter would soon tell us to make sure that there is indeed nothing wrong with us), but because there is something wrong with them.
God has made a difference between those who would be saved and those who would be damned. Peter repeatedly stresses this distinction in his letter. For example, in our passage, he says, "Now to you…But to those" (v. 7) and also "They stumble…But you…." (v. 8-9). This distinction is marked by our difference views toward Jesus Christ – God has made him the cornerstone of all true worship. Christ is who and what he is – neither our faith nor the unbelievers' unbelief can change him. But our difference views toward Christ is what exposes our difference – he is not defined by us, but we are defined by him.
As we will soon mention again, believers are "a chosen people" (v. 9). However, it is not as if the unbelievers are sovereign over their own unbelief. Peter says that they were "destined for" (v. 8) disobedience to the message and thus for stumbling over the cornerstone that is Christ. Thus although we demonstrate our difference by our different views toward Christ, we were never the ones who determined our place in relation to him, and therefore we were never the ones who determined what our view would be toward Christ. Believers accept Christ and build on him because God has chosen them, and unbelievers reject Christ and stumble over him also because of what God has determined in advance.
As expected, at this point, some commentators deny the biblical doctrine of double predestination – the idea that God has actively, consciously, and deliberately decreed the identities of both the elect and the reprobates. Then, others who claim to affirm double predestination nevertheless wish to make the decree concerning reprobation passive and conditional. But since elsewhere I have established both double predestination as well as active and unconditional reprobation, we shall not spend time repeating all the arguments here.
Commentary on First Peter (39)
Christ, this living Stone, is "rejected by men" (v. 4) – certainly not all men, but by some or even many men. Again, we will consider what happens to these people when we come to them later, but right now we are interested in what happens to Christ. Peter says that, though he is rejected by men, he is "chosen by God and precious to him."
At one time, to those who did not understand, even God appeared to have rejected him – that is, when he bore the guilt of the elect on the cross. But he was in fact God's chosen Savior, and very soon he was resurrected and glorified. This gives us encouragement as we imitate the life of Christ. At times, to those who do not understand, it might appear that we have been abandoned, and many will say to us, "Where is your God now?" But we have been chosen in Christ, and we are on our way to resurrection and glory.
God has made Christ the "cornerstone." The cornerstone is placed at one corner of the foundation of a building, and functions as the starting point for the entire structure. When used figuratively, it designates one as the pivotal person in relation to whom all others are defined. For an example, see Isaiah 19:13, where it seems that "cornerstones" refer to the "officials" and "leaders" of Egypt.
Now, Peter says that what the "builders" rejected, God made the "cornerstone." This was how Jesus himself answered the opposition of the Jewish leaders, and it is in fact a quotation taken from Psalm 118:22 (see Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11). Commentators agree that it is unnecessary or even wrong to offer the translation of "capstone" in verse 7, as the stone is said to be something that men would stumble over, so that it should refer to something on the ground rather than something that is on top of a structure. See also Romans 9:32-33, where Paul employs the same metaphor.
When Jesus appeared to Israel in his earthly ministry, the Jewish leaders as well as many of the people rejected him, and even set him up to be crucified by the Romans. They refused to have him in their religion, but this "stone" was in fact God's chosen and precious one, and he took what the people rejected and made it the cornerstone of the entire structure of true religion. God has made Christ the defining factor of his living temple, and every person who would come to God must find his place in relation to Christ.
So it is not up to men to design their own religion to reach God and to worship him. And it is not up to them to reject what God provides. God has already placed Christ as the cornerstone of this living temple, and now anyone who would come to God for salvation must build on Christ. Therefore, the only true religion is the Christian religion, and a religion is only Christian if it is explicitly built on Christ, and if everything and everyone in it is defined in relation to him.
Anything and anyone that is outside of this temple, that is not built on Christ, and that has not found one's place in relation to him, is false and pagan. It is not up to men to say how they would come to God and to worship him. Today many reject Christ and claim that they could reach God through another way, a way of their own choosing and of their own design. But God has laid his cornerstone in Zion. It is futile for people to build their own temple somewhere else and claim that they can come to God or find salvation through it.
Commentary on First Peter (38)
1 PETER 2:4-12
As you come to him, the living Stone – rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him – you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone," and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Like the previous passages, this one is also rich with theological ideas, and there are several ways to approach it. By that I mean there are several ways we can structure an exposition of the passage. For this study, I have chosen to begin with what it says about Christ, then about those who reject him, and then about those who believe in him. After that we will also discuss the application that Peter draws from what he teaches here.
Peter calls Christ the "living Stone" (v. 4). Some commentators overreacts to this and makes it into something surprising. Grudem calls it "a daring metaphor," and it is daring "for stones do not live." However, once we recognize it as a metaphor, there is nothing especially daring in likening a person to an inanimate object (or vice versa). In fact, as a metaphor, there would be no problem at all in calling Christ just a "stone," and to explicitly call him a living stone makes it much less daring or surprising.
Hillyer is even worse in calling this "a startling paradox," again, "for a stone is anything but alive." It might alarm us if Peter were to call Christ a dead stone, but as a metaphor, there is nothing startling or paradoxical in calling him a stone, and still less a living stone. There is nothing startling in calling a knowledgeable person a "walking encyclopedia," even though an encyclopedia is not a living object – we are using a metaphor. Likewise, when Christ calls himself "the gate" (John 10:7), he does not have to say "living gate." And when he calls his people "sheep," he does not have to say "human sheep"! A metaphor is a metaphor.
The significance of the metaphor is not that there is a tension between the inanimate nature of a stone and the fact that this stone is living, but Peter is making a contrast between the inanimate temple of Jerusalem and the living temple that is the church. We will say a little more about this living temple later in the chapter; meanwhile, we must continue to think about Christ as a stone in the context of our passage.
Commentary on First Peter (37)
We have devoted so much effort in considering Peter's low view of the unbelievers and his high view of grace, because it is only when we grasp what he is communicating here can our exposition reflect the pastoral wisdom exhibited in this letter. He is writing to Christians who would be facing various kinds of hardship and persecution. How is he preparing them? He is building his exhortations on a theology of salvation – of God's election, man's depravity, Christ's redemption, and the Spirit's power in regeneration and sanctification.
This is the general approach that we should follow to prepare ourselves, and if we are church leaders, to prepare our people for various attacks coming from the unbelievers. Sound theology is what prepares people for the various kinds of hardship and persecution that they will face.
Apply this to preaching, pastors should not begin with imperatives, but with the indicatives about the realities of Christian salvation. Do not just command the people – feed them, so that they will have the spiritual strength to obey what is commanded. Preach about the grace that has come to them, about the difference it has made in them, and about the new identity, new life, and new community that it has given to them.
Then, begin to mix in the imperatives with the indicatives. In the process, remind the people of their past foolish thinking and sinful lifestyle. Never allow them to imagine a romanticized version of the past. Remind them that they were fools and slaves under sin. Now that Christ has saved them, it is time to invest in this new life, cast away the past, and move forward with Christ.
Steady growth depends on a healthy appetite to feed on the proper foods (2:2). Through sin, neglect, and false teachings, believers can often become spiritually ill and have their appetites spoiled. The solution involves a return to the proper diet (sound doctrine), regular exercise (fellowship and ministry), the shepherd's intercession for the healing and renewal of their souls, and if necessary, spiritual surgery (personal confrontation and counseling).
Commentary on First Peter (36)
The failure to acknowledge the full extent of the sinfulness and foolishness of the unbelieving condition is ultimately a result of human depravity itself. It is a bias derived from a humanistic theology, that is, from a high view of self and a low view of grace. We take great pains to describe the utter depravity of the unbelievers, using all the vivid biblical terms that we can find, not because we derive a personal satisfaction from insulting them. But we do this because, in acknowledging the truth about the depravity of the unbelievers, we are at the same time magnifying the grace of God that saves such depraved sinners, such stupid and sinful creatures.
When God saves a non-Christian, it is not like he is changing a pair of dirty socks for him. It is much more than that. It is as if he is turning a piece of dung into a handsome prince, or changing a dumb mule into a college professor. This is why we must recognize the full extent of the wicked and stupid nature of the unbelievers, and then affirm that Christians have been redeemed from this kind of life at great cost, even by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Only from this perspective do we then fully recognize the extent of the trouble that we were in, and the extent of the grace and power that rescued us out of it.
Then, it is by standing upon this understanding of redemption that we can properly appreciate the admonition of Peter: "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." Because of where you were and where God has now taken you, the worst thing that you can do is to profess the faith and then fail to think and behave like a believer. Once you have started, you must go all the way. You must fully invest yourself into this new life.
This is the way to not only survive but to thrive as a Christian in a world that is hostile to the things of God. Do not have a taste and then walk away. Now that you have tasted that the Lord is good, abide in him, and desire the spiritual milk of the word – pure and unadulterated biblical teaching – so that you may grow in the faith, become strong in your stand, and become useful for his kingdom.
We find the same teaching in Paul. Like Peter, he first affirms that the non-Christians suffer from severe moral corruption and mental retardation, and that the Christians have been saved from this pitiful state. Then, from this he draws the conclusion that we must now put away the ignorance and the wickedness of the past, but move forward with Christ to grow in true knowledge and holiness.
There is a full example of this line of thinking in Ephesians 4:17-25. Notice the close correspondence between this passage and what we have read from Peter:
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
Paul has the same low view of non-Christians. He offers an elaborate description of the unbelievers' moral and mental deficiencies. He says that their thinking is futile (v. 17), their understanding darkened (v. 18a), and that they are ignorant (v. 18b). Their hearts are hardened (v. 18b), so that they have lost all sensitivity, and they are given over to sensuality, indulgence, and lusts (v. 19).
As Christians, once we were also like these people, but Christ has changed everything for us (v. 20-21). And on this basis, the apostle exhorts us to holy living, to put behind past transgressions and ignorance, and to move forward in our faith. This includes putting on a new mind and a new self (v. 23-24), and fully investing ourselves into building up the body of Christ (v. 25).